PrepTest 144

Incorrect. The relevant metric is what happens once someone is driving with a GPS system, not what happens before then. These systems could end up in only a small number of cars but still promote safety and less fuel use.

Incorrect. Motivation doesn't equal outcome—someone could want to find a shorter route but fail, whereas the GPS systems have been shown to decrease distance traveled.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss GPS systems at all, and it doesn't show that planning out a route carefully saves fuel or increases safety.

Incorrect. This undermines the claim that they save fuels by resulting in shorter trips.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
GPS systems have been shown to:

Decrease miles driven per journey to new locations/less fuel

People can keep their eyes on the road (safer)

So they save fuel and promote safety.

Answer Anticipation:
The LSAT is really dating itself with this question. Satnav systems?

The argument concludes that GPS systems have two benefits—saving fuel and promoting safety. It goes through some specifics of what these systems do that promote each of these goals, but it's not a comprehensive list for either. While GPS systems may keep miles per trip down, it might promote more driving and thus use more fuel. While they may keep people's eyes on the road, they may distract the driver during key moments by suddenly speaking out a direction.

This argument is very much in the vein of a cost/benefit or pros/cons argument—forms we see quite frequently on the LSAT. When we're asked to strengthen one, we frequently find an answer that brings up another benefit/pro or eliminates/minimizes a cost/con. We should look for the same here—another way GPS systems save fuel or increase safety; or an elimination of a way that they would increase fuel consumption or decrease safety.

Answer Explanation:
GPS systems are noted as giving directions as needed, so this answer describes an effect they have. If people using them are less likely to make risky driving maneuvers, then that suggests that their safety will be increased, so this strengthens the argument.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument is discussing the pros or benefits of something, or the cons/costs, start to think about other considerations the stimulus doesn't raise. In general, correct answers will bring up other relevant pros/cons.