medium · 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 premise and another in the conclusion
- supports its conclusion with a premise that merely restates that conclusion
- draws an unsound comparison between two situations that are only superficially alike
- treats a single arrest as proof that the opponent habitually disregards park regulations
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?