easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A politician declares: my opponent's plan to increase funding for public parks is misguided. After all, my opponent was once arrested for trespassing in a public park.
The reasoning in the politician's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- rejects a proposal by citing discrediting facts about the person who advanced it rather than addressing the proposal itself
- uses the term 'misguided' in one sense in the supporting premise and quite a different sense again in its final conclusion
- supports its stated conclusion with a premise that does no more than restate that very same conclusion in slightly other words
- draws an unsound comparison between two distinct situations that are alike in only the most superficial of respects
- treats a single recorded arrest as conclusive proof that the opponent habitually disregards posted park regulations
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