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 drawn from earlier rail projects that may not at all resemble the current proposal under debate
- attacks the personal character of the opponents themselves rather than the genuine substance of their proposal
- draws a broad conclusion from a survey whose pool of respondents was far too small to support it
- concludes, far too sweepingly, that no transportation project of any kind could ever be worth its full 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