easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A commentator argues: "Professor Smith is an eminent expert in nuclear physics. He has stated that the current tax proposal will destroy the economy. Given his exceptional intellect, we should take his warning about the proposal seriously."
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- ignores the possibility that other nuclear physicists would disagree with Smith's prediction.
- treats expertise in one field as if it lent authority to a claim in an unrelated field.
- assumes the effects of a tax proposal can be forecast with scientific certainty.
- fails to supply the specific evidence on which Smith bases his prediction.
- concludes that the tax proposal will succeed merely because an expert opposes it.
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