hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city's public health department noted that neighborhoods with a higher density of streetlights have lower rates of nighttime pedestrian injuries than neighborhoods with a lower density of streetlights. The department concluded that installing additional streetlights in Elm District, which currently has a low density of streetlights, will lower Elm District's rate of nighttime pedestrian injuries.
The health department's argument requires assuming which one of the following?
- Every past nighttime injury in Elm District happened at a spot that currently lacks a streetlight.
- The new streetlights will be made by the same company that made lights in other well-lit areas.
- Fewer injuries in well-lit areas are not mainly explained by those areas having safer road design.
- The city has budgeted enough funding to light Elm District at the density of the best-lit areas.
- Elm District residents currently walk at night less often than residents of well-lit neighborhoods.
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?