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.
- Littering rates in neighboring cities also fell slightly over the same period.
- Collecting the increased fines cost the city more than the revenue those fines brought in.
- Some residents said they had no idea the fines had been doubled.
- The number of citations issued for littering rose in the months after the fines were raised.
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?