medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The municipal government should subsidize high-speed internet in rural districts. Critics object that the costs are prohibitive, but this objection ignores the long-term economic stimulus that universal connectivity provides. After all, regions with better infrastructure consistently attract high-growth industries.
The claim that regions with better infrastructure consistently attract high-growth industries plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
- It is evidence advanced to support a subordinate claim that in turn backs the argument's main recommendation.
- It is the central recommendation that the argument, as a whole, is specifically designed to establish and urge.
- It is a frank concession granting that the critics' objection about prohibitive costs has genuine, real force.
- It is mere scene-setting context that supplies no logical support whatsoever to any other claim in the passage.
- It is an unstated assumption that the argument never actually puts into words but nonetheless silently relies upon.
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