medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The mayor's office reported that the percentage of the city's budget spent on public safety decreased from 25 percent to 20 percent this year. A local critic argued that the city is now spending less money on public safety than it did last year.
The critic's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- mistakes a drop in something's share of a total for a drop in the actual dollars devoted to it.
- neglects the fact that public safety is a municipal government's single most important duty.
- disregards the possibility that the city's growing population now demands more public safety spending.
- takes for granted that the figures released by the mayor's office are financially accurate.
- assumes the public-safety budget is determined entirely by the mayor's office rather than the city council.
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