PrepTest 118

Incorrect. While the remedy mentioned is speed bumps, there's no discussion of speeding vehicles. Instead, the stimulus only mentions noisy through-traffic and congestion, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't ignore possibilities that the speed bumps could be addressing potential issues—just that they're an unfair way to address those issues since everyone has the right to drive down Grove Park.

Incorrect. The argument is about fairness, not whether there have been complaints filed. Something can be unfair despite not facing any complaints, and it can be fair despite many people complaining about it. This answer, in discussing complaints, is out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, the argument relies on residents not having this right, since the public has paid for the streets.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Grove Park's streets were built with public funds, so all drivers have the right to use them, and therefore the speed bumps installed are unfair.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument features an intermediate conclusion as well as a main point, so we need to look at both to see if there are any flaws.

First, does a street being built with public funds mean that all drivers have a right to use them whenever they please? Not necessarily. A correct answer could highlight that this connection isn't established.

Second, the argument implies that the speed bumps are preventing people from using the streets—that's why they're unfair, since people have the right to use them. However, it doesn't establish that—people can still drive down these streets, they just need to keep their speed in check. This is another potential gap that the correct answer could highlight.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the author of the argument jumps from discussing people having the right to using the streets to assuming that speed bumps are infringing on that right. If speed bumps don't prevent people from using the streets, then their rights aren't infringed and the speed bumps can't be said to be unfair.

Key Takeaway:
In any LSAT question featuring a flawed argument with an intermediate conclusion, look for gaps between the premises and the intermediate conclusion, and the rest of the argument and the main conclusion. Either shift can have flawed reasoning, and if both feature a logic gap, then either could lead to the correct answer. Anticipating one answer and not finding it can be a blow, so it's better to not run into that wall if you can avoid it!