medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city is planning a new light rail system. Proponents argue it will reduce traffic congestion. Opponents respond that previous expansions of the bus system failed to reduce traffic, and they conclude that the light rail system will likewise fail to reduce traffic.
The opponents' argument relies on assuming which one of the following?
- Whatever caused the bus expansion to fail at cutting traffic is also at work in the light rail proposal.
- Light rail systems cost considerably more to build and to maintain over time than comparable bus systems do.
- Most city residents would rather drive their own private cars than use any form of publicly funded transit.
- Reducing traffic congestion is the only legitimate justification a city could offer for building light rail.
- Light rail and bus systems are essentially identical in every respect relevant to ridership and operating cost.
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