medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city official argues that building the proposed high-speed rail line will reduce traffic congestion in our city, pointing out that cities with rail systems average twenty percent less traffic than cities without them.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the official's argument?
- In a city much like this one, congestion fell sharply only after a high-speed rail line opened, having held steady for years before
- The proposed rail line would cost far less to build, per mile of capacity added, than widening the city's existing highway network would
- The rail line is to be powered entirely by renewable energy sources, sparing the city the emissions that road traffic now produces
- In a recent citywide survey, most residents said they liked the idea of having a modern rail system serving their daily commute
- Cities with rail systems also tend to have larger, denser downtown business districts than do otherwise comparable cities without them
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