easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city council member argues: our city's average resident income has risen by 10 percent over the past three years. This proves that the economic well-being of the majority of our citizens has improved significantly.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it:
- neglects the possibility that the city's overall cost of living has fallen sharply during the same period.
- treats a statement about a group's average as though it described what is true for most members of the group.
- assumes the recent income gains resulted from deliberate city policies rather than from broader national trends.
- ignores that personal income is only one of several legitimate measures of an individual's economic well-being.
- concludes that not a single resident's income could possibly have declined over the relevant three-year period.
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