medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Council member: Some of my colleagues argue that my proposed tax plan will hurt the middle class. But these colleagues clearly want our city to go bankrupt, and we should never heed people bent on destroying our financial future.
The council member's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- rejects the colleagues' objection by recasting their concern as a wish to wreck the city's finances, a position they never took
- draws a sweeping conclusion about the views held by all of the colleagues from the stated positions of merely a few among them
- relies on the very claim it is trying to establish as if it were one of the independent reasons offered in support of that claim
- treats two genuinely distinct situations as fully alike in a relevant respect when they are not in fact comparable in that way
- assumes that any tax plan opposed by some of the colleagues must, for that single reason alone, be financially sound for the city
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