medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Nations with lower per-capita carbon emissions tend to invest more heavily in public transit than nations with higher emissions. From this, a policy analyst concludes that increasing investment in public transit is the most effective way for any country to bring its emissions down.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the analyst's reasoning?
- It treats a strategy associated with lower emissions across nations on average as the single best emissions-cutting tool for each nation individually.
- It does not define the metric of per-capita carbon emissions precisely enough to permit fully valid comparisons across many quite different countries.
- It disregards the possibility that the public transit vehicles themselves are, in routine daily operation, meaningful direct emitters of carbon.
- It supposes that the nations now investing heavily in public transit must be doing so solely out of a genuine concern for environmental motives.
- It assumes that the low-emission nations would each cut their own emissions still further if only they invested even more in public transit.
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