medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Senator: My opponent's plan to increase the minimum wage is dangerous. My opponent essentially wants to destroy the small business sector and force every local shop to close its doors. We cannot allow this kind of economic sabotage.
The Senator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
- recasts the opponent's proposal as a far more extreme aim than was advanced and then condemns that exaggerated version
- leans almost entirely on emotionally charged and alarming wording in the place of any genuine supporting evidence
- dismisses the proposal outright by impugning the personal character of the very person who first put it forward
- treats a similar policy's well-documented failure in the past as a decisive reason it is bound to fail again now
- assumes, without any real argument, that any increase at all in the minimum wage would close at least some local shops
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