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 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?