medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Politician: Our opponents claim that we should invest in high-speed rail in order to reduce traffic congestion. But high-speed rail is incredibly expensive to build and maintain. Therefore, we should not invest in high-speed rail.
The politician's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- rejects the proposal without ever engaging the congestion-reduction rationale its supporters actually offered
- relies on a sample of past rail projects that may not resemble the current proposal
- attacks the character of the opponents rather than the substance of their proposal
- assumes that because a project is expensive it cannot also be effective
- concludes that no transportation project is worth its cost
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?