medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A researcher noted that cities with more public parks per square mile also tend to have significantly lower rates of stress-related illnesses among their residents. Based on this observation, the researcher concluded that increasing the number of public parks is the most effective way for a city to improve the mental health of its population.
The researcher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- elevates a factor merely associated with a desirable outcome into the single most efficient means of producing that outcome.
- overlooks that some residents will not visit nearby public parks even when those green spaces are placed conveniently near them.
- assumes that stress-related illness is the only legitimate yardstick by which a population's broader mental health can be measured.
- infers that whatever holds true for entire cities considered as wholes must also hold for every individual neighborhood within them.
- relies on data drawn from a few cities so atypical that no general conclusion about sound urban policy could be reliably supported.
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 these statements?
- 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?