medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city planner argues that installing bike lanes on major thoroughfares always reduces the number of traffic accidents involving cyclists. The planner points to data from three specific streets where this occurred.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the planner's argument?
- Most cyclists would rather ride on quiet residential streets than on busy major thoroughfares.
- The three streets the planner cites also received major upgrades to their traffic-signal timing at the very same time.
- Citywide pedestrian accidents have fallen thanks to a new public safety awareness campaign.
- After bike lanes were added to one recently renovated boulevard, the number of cyclist accidents there tripled.
- Bike lanes are the single greatest threat to cyclist safety ever devised and should be banned everywhere.
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