hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
City planner: Every neighborhood that has added a protected bike lane in the past five years has seen local business revenue rise. Therefore, if the city wants to boost business revenue in the Elmwood district, it should install a protected bike lane there.
The city planner's argument is flawed because it
- fails to specify how many neighborhoods installed protected bike lanes over the five years
- assumes revenue is the only outcome officials should ever weigh when deciding on street infrastructure
- concludes a bike lane guarantees Elmwood's revenue rises by exactly the same margin seen elsewhere
- applies a pattern from neighborhoods that chose bike lanes to one where the city imposes the policy
- gives no evidence that bike lanes were the sole infrastructure change in any neighborhood studied
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 these statements?
- 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?