easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Candidate: My opponent argues that we should increase the tax on gasoline to fund road repairs. But my opponent is a wealthy individual who owns three luxury cars and rarely uses public transit. Therefore, we should reject the proposal to increase the gasoline tax.
The candidate's argument is flawed because it
- rejects a proposal by impugning the character and circumstances of the person who advanced it rather than weighing the proposal on its own merits.
- assumes without any warrant that taxing gasoline is the one and only conceivable mechanism by which a city could finance its needed infrastructure.
- deploys a single key term in two genuinely distinct senses across its premises, and in doing so produces a quietly misleading final conclusion.
- infers a firm causal connection merely from the fact that two otherwise unrelated events happened to occur at one and the very same moment.
- treats the opponent's considerable personal wealth as conclusive proof that the proposed gasoline tax would inevitably end up harming the poor.
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