medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Economist: The current administration's policy of reducing corporate taxes will lead to an increase in overall employment. When corporate taxes were reduced in 1986 and 2001, significant job growth followed within two years.
The economist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- concludes that the tax cuts produced the job growth simply because the growth came after them
- leaves the phrase "overall employment" too vaguely defined to permit any rigorous statistical test
- smuggles the very conclusion it sets out to establish into one of its own supporting premises
- rests on the views of an authority whose actual field is unrelated to the matter at issue here
- assumes that the very officials who enacted those earlier tax cuts still hold office now as well
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