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 on emotionally charged wording in place of any supporting evidence
- dismisses the proposal by impugning the character of the person who put it forward
- treats a policy's past failure as a reason it must fail again now
- assumes that any increase in the minimum wage would close at least some shops
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?