medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city saw a 30 percent drop in littering after it doubled the fines for the offense. The mayor concluded that the higher fines were responsible for the cleaner streets.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the mayor's conclusion?
- At the very moment the fines were raised, the city also rolled out a sweeping public-awareness campaign about the environmental harm caused by littering.
- A few residents in one neighboring city told a reporter that they personally throw away less litter now than they recall having done several years ago.
- Collecting the steeply increased littering fines reportedly cost the city's enforcement office somewhat more in staff time than the extra revenue brought in.
- One resident mentioned in passing that an old sign near the park still listed the previous, lower fine amount rather than the newly doubled penalty figure.
- The total number of citations that officers issued for littering rose noticeably in the months immediately after the doubled fines first took full legal effect.
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