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 warrant that taxing gasoline is the only conceivable way to finance infrastructure.
- deploys a single key term in two distinct senses, producing a misleading conclusion.
- infers a causal connection from the mere fact that two events happened at the same time.
- treats the opponent's wealth as conclusive proof that the proposal would harm the poor.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?