medium · 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 cases that are not similar enough to support the conclusion
- assumes that children's toys are the only thing in a household capable of causing injury
- neglects to specify what standard of 'safe' would allow the claim to be objectively tested
- concludes that the toys are dangerous solely because regulators proposed new rules for them
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?