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 statistical test
- smuggles the very conclusion it aims to establish into one of its supporting premises
- rests on the testimony of an authority whose field is unrelated to the matter at issue
- assumes that the same officials who cut taxes before are in office now
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?