Logical reasoning PrepTest 125 · Section 4 · Question 15

Incorrect. Singletary doesn't question the city's understanding of what it would take to make bicyclists safer; he questions their motives in taking a certain action. It's possible the city perfectly understands what would actually make cyclists safer but has focused on something that creates that impression with the least amount of work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Background - A new city ordinance requires bicyclists to wear helmets
CCF - We're against that!
Why? - City wants to be safer → not Require helmets AND Make more bike lanes AND Educate drivers about bike safety
Conclusion - The city cares about appearing concerned, not safety

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a bit subtle with a lot of pieces, but we can focus on an element that we know is relevant in a lot of arguments on the LSAT—motive. Singletary's argument reaches a conclusion about the true motives of the city in passing an ordinance, and so we should track the support for that throughout the argument.

Why does Singletary think that the city isn't truly motivated by increasing bicyclist safety? Because if they were focused on that, they'd instead increase the number of bike lanes and educate drivers on bicyclist safety—the latter of which is the statement in question. So that statement is designed to support the conclusion about the city's true motives, and the correct answer should highlight that.

Answer Explanation:
The statement in question reflects something the city would focus on if it were truly motivated by increasing cyclist safety—and their focus in other areas supports the conclusion they don't have such a motivation. And since it's one of two areas Singletary claims they'd focus on if safety were their true motivation, it's correct to say that it's "partial support." This answer reflects the role of the statement in question in the argument, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:When the answer to "Why?" is presented for a statement, that statement is usually the main point, and the answer is support for it.

Incorrect. Singletary doesn't claim that the helmet ordinance would be completely ineffective, just that it's not what the city would focus on if they were truly interested in safety.

Incorrect. Singletary doesn't seem to have much hope that the city will take further steps to protect bicyclists.

Incorrect. First, Singletary only discusses a single area, and so this answer is broader than her argument. Second, she discusses the city's interest in the appearance of safety, which isn't the same as its public image. Third, she compares only that appearance to actual safety, not other considerations. Because of these many reasons that this answer doesn't reflect the argument, it can be eliminated.