PrepTest 157

[lcid:3726] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Journalist: Contrary to popular Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
Eliminates possible alternate cause Shows same cause, same effect Shows no cause, no cause Shows the cause and effect are not reversed
If not causal argument, anticipate ways to fix problem with argument
Use anticipations to eliminate the answer choices that strengthen the argument and select an answer choice that does not strengthen the argument.

Answer Anticipation

This is a Bizarro Strengthen question, so the argument has to be flawed enough that four different answer choices can fix the problems. And this one is very flawed indeed! Causation flaws are the most common issue on these questions, so experienced test-takers look for that flaw first. The conclusion doesn't use any causal keywords, but the journalist seems to assume that the day is the reason why more traffic deaths occur during the day. Otherwise, there would be no reason to conclude that driving during the day is more dangerous. So, the incorrect answers could fix this problem by eliminating alternative causes (other plausible reasons why there may be more traffic deaths during the day) or showing the same correlation in other situations (either "same cause, same effect" or "no cause, no effect"). Observant test-takers will also note that the journalist's conclusion makes a strong selection. Driving during the day is "more dangerous" than driving at night. Conclusions that select one option over the other— in this case, as the "more dangerous" time to drive — usually don't consider enough evidence to make that selection. The author cites stats that suggest that more traffic deaths occur during the day, but is that the only evidence we need to conclude that the daytime is more dangerous? What about car accidents in general? What about the percentage of traffic accidents that result in injury or death? And are we sure this comparison is even fair? Like, don't way more cars drive during the day? So, couldn't that be why there are more traffic deaths during the day? The incorrect answers could fix these selection problems by filling in stats that further suggest that driving during the day is more dangerous. We'll use these anticipations to help us eliminate wrong answer choices. The correct answer choice will not strengthen the argument. It could be irrelevant, or it could even weaken the argument by exploiting one of these problems.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Only during the day Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This one strengthens the argument by providing more stats that suggest the daytime is more dangerous. If most cars driving during the day are unsafe, then we'd expect the daytime to be the more dangerous time to drive.

  2. B
    There is decreased law Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This one strengthens the argument by providing more stats that suggest the daytime is more dangerous. If there is less law enforcement during the day, there are fewer people to stop dangerous drivers and unsafe vehicles before they harm someone else. That makes it more reasonable to conclude that the daytime is the more dangerous time to drive.

  3. C
    Persons drive more cautiously Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This one strengthens the argument by providing more stats that suggest the daytime is more dangerous. If people drive more recklessly during the day, then there should be a higher percentage of accidents during the day. This supports the journalist's argument that the daytime is the more dangerous time to drive.

  4. D
    The number of travelers Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    This doesn't affect the journalist's argument, so it's the correct answer to this Bizarro Strengthen question. The number of people in each car may have increased over the last ten years, but that doesn't suggest that it's more dangerous to drive during the day. Maybe if a higher percentage of cars had more people during the day, then we could expect drivers to be more distracted during the day and thus more likely to get into accidents. But, this answer choice doesn't fill in those details. In fact, it doesn't tell us anything about daytime versus nighttime. Without differentiating those times, this can't meaningfully strengthen this argument.

  5. E
    Persons drive faster during Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This one strengthens the argument by providing more stats that suggest the daytime is more dangerous. If people drive faster during the day, then there should be a higher percentage of accidents at that time. This supports the journalist's argument that driving during the daytime is more dangerous.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion