medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city council member argues: "Since we installed additional streetlights in the North District, the crime rate there has fallen by 10%. To bring down crime in the South District, we therefore must install additional streetlights there as well."
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the council member's argument?
- During the same months the lights went up, the North District also doubled its police patrols.
- The recorded 10% decline in the North District accumulated gradually across a span of three years.
- Several North District residents complained that the newly installed lights were uncomfortably bright.
- The South District covers more square miles and contains more streets than the North District does.
- Crime rates fell even more sharply in a neighboring city that installed no new streetlights at all.
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?