medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
All citizens of the town must be wealthy, because the town has the highest total income of any town in the state.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that it
- fails to provide any clear and workable definition of the central evaluative term 'wealthy' as it is being used here
- relies on a comparison drawn between two things that are not in fact sufficiently similar to license the inference
- takes for granted that residing within the town is strictly required in order for any person at all to count as wealthy
- infers that each individual member of a group has a property that in fact belongs only to the group taken collectively
- assumes that because the town leads the entire state in income today, it is bound to continue doing so in the future
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