medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The average household income in the Millfield district has risen sharply over the past five years. We may therefore conclude that the majority of Millfield residents now enjoy greater purchasing power than they did five years ago.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats a rise in an average as though it guaranteed a gain for most of the population.
- disregards the effect of inflation on what residents' incomes can actually buy.
- fails to take into account that the number of households in the district may have changed.
- treats the passage of time as the cause of the increase in income.
- assumes that higher income necessarily translates into greater overall happiness for residents.
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