medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The city council argues that installing a new park will increase local property taxes. They base this on the historical trend of development following new green spaces. Claim [1]: But current interest rates are at an all-time high, making new residential development prohibitively expensive. Claim [2]: This financial constraint is likely to suppress the expected increase in property values. Therefore, the city's projected revenue from the park is probably unrealistic.
What is the logical role of Claim [2] in the argument?
- It is a premise stated as a settled, uncontested fact about the housing market.
- It is a sub-conclusion, inferred from the interest-rate premise, that bolsters the argument's central thesis.
- It is the very position the author sets out to refute.
- It is a concession to the council's underlying premise about development.
- It correctly identifies how high rates dampen development, but it is offered to argue that the council should lower rates.
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