PrepTest 101

[lcid:3501] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Steven: The allowable blood Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed/Flawed

Question Type

Point at Issue Questions

Stimulus Summary

S: Cutting the legal BAC in half would stop social drinkers from driving, making highways safer, so we should do it.
M: Doing that wouldn’t stop heavy drinkers from driving, and they’re the dangerous ones, so lowering the BAC wouldn’t do much.

Answer Anticipation

When dealing with a Point at Issue question, it’s definitely important to identify issues that both speakers discuss. Here, both Miguel and Steven weigh in on a specific plan - cutting the legal BAC in half.
Steven believes that this would “significantly increase[]” highway safety, deterring social drinkers from driving. Miguel disagrees, believing that it “would have little effect” on safety because it won’t stop heavy drinkers from drinking and driving with BACs double the current limit.
With this disagreement in mind, we should head to the answer choices and find the one reflecting it.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Social drinkers who drink Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    Steven believes that they do, which is why lowering the BAC limit to deter them from drinking and driving will increase highway safety. While it may seem as if this answer is out of scope since Miguel doesn’t discuss social drinkers, he does imply something about them. By saying that the lowering of the legal limit for driving wouldn’t increase highway safety, Miguel is committed to believing that the social drinkers who fall under that limit aren’t contributing much to danger on the highways. As such, this answer is a point that the two disagree on, and so this is the correct answer.

  2. B
    There is a direct Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    First, both speakers do seem to suggest that there is a positive correlation between being more drunk and being more of a danger on the road, so this is, if anything, a point of agreement. However, neither specifically cites a directly proportional relationship between the two, so this answer is out of scope.

  3. C
    A driver with a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Miguel directly states this, but Steven doesn’t disagree. He just believes that those under the legal limit but still somewhat intoxicated also pose a substantial danger.

  4. D
    Some drivers whose blood Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Steven states this. Miguel doesn’t necessarily disagree - he just thinks that there aren’t enough of them posing enough of a danger to have a substantial impact on highway safety.

  5. E
    A driver with a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Steven disagrees with this answer. Miguel doesn’t necessarily disagree - he could believe that this person does pose some danger, just not a substantial enough one for the change in the BAC limit to affect highway safety significantly.

What this tests

Discussion

  • answer 1 reply

    Started by MelissaEngelking

View all discussions Start a discussion