easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city planner proposed adding a single bike lane downtown. A critic responded by arguing that removing all cars from downtown would ruin local businesses.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning?
- It assumes the conclusion it sets out to prove.
- It generalizes from one business to every business downtown.
- It attacks a far more extreme proposal than the one actually made.
- It assumes that because one thing follows another, the reverse must too.
- It assumes a small change will inevitably snowball into an extreme outcome.
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