medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Speaker A: To minimize regional violence, we should stop making public declarations condemning oppressive regimes, since our last six declarations were each immediately followed by outbreaks of violence.
Speaker B: Those declarations were made only because our intelligence indicated that violence was already certain to occur. Stopping the declarations would not have prevented the violence.
The speakers disagree over whether:
- the public declarations were what brought about the violence that followed them.
- oppressive regimes genuinely deserve formal condemnation by the international community.
- violence in fact broke out shortly after each of the six separate public declarations.
- intelligence reports are, as a rule, a dependable gauge of looming regional instability.
- future violence can be predicted accurately enough to justify any policy change.
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