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 solely on the basis of the motives of the council members.
- ignores the substantial financial burden that switching from plastic straws to paper would impose.
- supposes, without any warrant, that the ocean is the only environment plastic waste can harm.
- treats the one-percent figure as if it stood for far less waste than it really does.
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