easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The board of directors is considering two options for the new office location: downtown or the suburbs. Since the downtown location is far too expensive, the board must choose the suburban location.
The argument's reasoning is questionable because it
- Overlooks that locations beyond downtown and the suburbs might also be available.
- Concludes that what holds for the downtown site must hold for every urban site.
- Presupposes that cost is the only factor that could matter in choosing a location.
- Attacks the downtown option for its finances rather than for its actual merits.
- Assumes that the suburban location will turn out to be affordable for the board.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ