PrepTest 150

Incorrect. While the stimulus suggests engineers could learn from fish, there's no indication that it's fish biology that allows them to navigate so well. Maybe it's fish psychology, or mathematical rules baked into the DNA that can be studied through observation instead of dissection. Also, expertise might be too much—it's possible their principles could be learned with a bit of study instead of a Masters in . . . Ichthyology?

Incorrect. Fish have a means of dealing with congestion, but that doesn't mean good drivers use the same strategies. It's possible that good drivers adapt to work around bad drivers, whereas fish might all work in unison.

Incorrect. This answer is too extreme in stating that something is always advisable. One specific situation doesn't allow a generalization like this.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Argument Completion

Stimulus Summary:
Engineers have to overcome some tough problems to make a self-driving car. The problems facing cars in traffic are similar to those facing fish in schools. However, the fish have learned to deal with these problems. Therefore . . .

Answer Anticipation:
If the fish have figured out a way to handle these problems, that suggests the engineers should learn some tricks from Flounder in trying to make their self-driving cars work.

Answer Explanation:
This answer connects the dots and doesn't overcommit. If fish have solved the tough problems that engineers are facing, studying the fish might help.

Key Takeaway:
Watch out for the strength of language on the LSAT! Coulda, woulda, shoulda are all important and distinct.

Incorrect. This answer is too strong in saying that something would be true. While fish have some good principles to help with crashes and congestion, there's no indication that those principles will resolve problems with self-driving cars. Compare this answer to the correct answer (D), and see how that answer only states that studying fish could help.