medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A study found that at intersections where red-light cameras were installed, accidents decreased by 28 percent over three years. Traffic officials concluded that the cameras are an effective deterrent against dangerous driving behavior.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
- The expense of maintaining the cameras outstripped the revenue collected from the resulting traffic fines over the three years.
- At intersections lacking cameras, the recorded number of accidents held steady or even ticked modestly upward across the same span.
- A citywide safety push that added police patrols and lowered speed limits took effect at the very moment the cameras were installed.
- Many drivers ticketed by the cameras said they had no inkling the devices were present until the printed fine arrived by mail.
- The measured 28 percent reduction stands as the single largest accident decline ever recorded at those particular intersections.
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