medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Critic: I grant that the new factory has created several hundred local jobs. It does not follow, however, that the town's economy is now thriving, for those jobs have been offset by the closure of the older businesses the factory has driven out.
The critic's argument proceeds by
- granting a point an opponent might press while denying that it supports the conclusion drawn from it
- abandoning the critic's own original stance entirely in order to side openly with the opposing view
- blending the critic's position together with the opposing position into one single, combined claim
- marshaling statistical evidence intended to show that the factory in fact created no local jobs at all
- demonstrating that the opponent's central guiding premise is, on inspection, internally self-contradictory
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