medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The city council proposed a ban on plastic straws in order to reduce ocean pollution. Critics argue that the ban is useless, since straws account for less than one percent of the plastic waste in the ocean.
The critics' argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- assumes that addressing a small fraction of a problem can accomplish nothing worthwhile.
- rejects the proposal on the basis of the personal motives of those who advanced it.
- ignores the financial burden of switching from plastic straws to paper substitutes.
- supposes that the ocean is the only environment that plastic waste can harm.
- treats the one-percent figure as if it were far smaller than it actually is.
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?