medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city council member states: "Most residents of our city support the new zoning law. I know this because every person who spoke at yesterday's public hearing expressed support for it."
The council member's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- Generalizes about the whole city from a small, self-selected set of hearing speakers unlikely to mirror it.
- Fails to allow for the possibility that many of the city's residents are simply indifferent to the zoning law.
- Confuses a condition that is merely sufficient for supporting the law with one that is strictly necessary for it.
- Assumes that wishing to voice support is the only conceivable reason a resident would attend the public hearing.
- Treats unanimous support voiced at one hearing as if it guaranteed unanimous support among residents citywide.
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