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 10% decline in the North District accumulated only gradually over a span of three full years.
- A few North District residents have complained that the newly installed streetlights are too bright.
- The South District covers more square miles and contains far more individual streets than the North does, raising the cost.
- Crime fell even more sharply over the same period in a neighboring city that put up no new streetlights at all anywhere.
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