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 all of the colleagues from the views of just a few of them
- relies on the very claim it is trying to establish as one of its supporting reasons
- treats two situations as alike in a relevant respect when they are not actually comparable
- assumes that any plan opposed by some colleagues must therefore be financially sound
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?