medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
The city's current stadium is thirty years old. Therefore, the city should build a new stadium.
Which one of the following identifies the most significant gap in the argument's reasoning?
- Age alone does not show that the existing stadium is no longer usable or that building a new one is the only fitting response
- The argument neglects to weigh whether the city has the financial resources required to fund the construction of a new stadium
- The argument simply takes for granted that thirty years amounts to an unusually long service life for a structure of this kind
- The word 'stadium' appears to be used in two distinct senses at different points across the course of the argument's reasoning
- The argument assumes that any building that has reached thirty years of age must necessarily be on the verge of structural collapse
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