easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A consumer advocate argued that the new safety regulations for children's toys are unnecessary. The advocate's reasoning was that since there is no evidence proving that the current toys have caused any injuries in the last year, the toys must be safe.
The reasoning in the consumer advocate's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- treats the mere absence of proof that the toys cause harm as though it established that they are harmless
- draws on a comparison between two distinct cases that are simply not similar enough to support the conclusion
- assumes that children's toys are the only thing present in a typical household capable of causing injury
- neglects to specify what objective standard of 'safe' would allow the central claim to be properly tested
- concludes that the toys are dangerous solely because regulators have lately proposed new safety rules for them
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