hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Health commissioner: In counties that built new hospitals last year, the reported rate of serious workplace injuries rose by twelve percent. Since hospitals exist to treat injuries, and injury reports climbed only where new hospitals appeared, we can conclude that building a hospital in a county actually causes workplace injuries to increase.
The health commissioner's reasoning is flawed because it
- presumes workplace injuries are the only injury type these hospitals are equipped to treat
- overlooks that a new hospital could just make existing injuries easier to diagnose and log
- relies on a county sample too small to support any claim about a nationwide safety trend
- takes for granted that counties without a new hospital saw no change in their injury rate
- draws a causal conclusion that directly contradicts the commissioner's own stated premises
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 these statements?
- 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?