easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
After a city installed traffic cameras at several intersections, the number of accidents at those intersections fell by 28 percent over the following year. The city's transportation department concludes that the cameras must be responsible for the decline.
The reasoning in the department's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it:
- ignores the possibility that the cameras raised accident rates at nearby intersections lacking them
- fails to weigh the substantial financial cost of purchasing and installing the traffic cameras
- takes for granted that a 28 percent drop is large enough to count as a statistically significant change
- infers that because the decline followed the installation, the installation produced the decline
- assumes that vehicle accidents are the only traffic problem the new cameras could conceivably affect
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