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 original stance in order to side with an opposing view
- blending the critic's position with the opposing position into a single combined claim
- marshaling evidence intended to show that the factory created no jobs at all
- demonstrating that the opponent's central premise is internally contradictory
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?