Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q2 A large number of drivers routinely

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A large number of drivers routinely violate highway speed limits.

Conclusion

Installing devices in cars that prevent them from exceeding the speed limit would prevent most accidents.

Evidence

Most accidents involve someone speeding over the limit. A lot drivers routinely speed on the highways.

Evaluate

Given That most accidents involve someone speeding,

How Could We Argue That installing these devices that don't let you speed would not prevent most accidents?

When an author is recommending a Plan, we are always implicitly judging a Comparison between Current World and Plan World.

In our Current World, people speed and most accidents involve someone speeding.

In Plan World, nobody would be able to speed. But would these devices create new problems? What if it needs to download a firmware update and shuts me down on a railroad crossing?

Goal

The author is assuming a few things: - Preventing cars from going over the speed limit would prevent most accidents - These new devices wouldn't end up creating new opportunities for accidents (like equipment malfunction, or Slow Rage, when drivers start driving aggressively because they hate the devices the government installed on their cars)

2.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. A person need not be

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: how it would be installed This has the attractive Necessary Assumption word "not". We should negate it, and if the negation hurts the argument, that means it's our correct answer. negation: A person does need to be a trained mechanic to install the device properly. Does that negation weaken the argument? No, the author never talked about how easy or practical the installation process would be. This argument doesn't deal with how it would be installed. The author isn't saying this Plan is likely to happen or should happen. He's just saying "if it did happen ... if we installed these devices on all cars, it would prevent most accidents". So the author hasn't committed herself to any details about how this plan would proceed, whether the government provides the installation or whether untrained people do it in their driveways.

    3% picked this

  2. Most accidents are caused by

    Opposite

    The author is assuming that most accidents are caused by people going over the speed limit, not because they're inexperienced drivers.

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    A driver seldom needs to

    Why this is right

    This answer certainly doesn't look inviting, at first. It's a disguised version of the classic Defender answer: it is not the case that ... But instead of using "not", they're using "seldom". What's the logical opposite of "seldom"? If I said, "I seldom burp out loud." and you said, "Nuh-uh", you're arguing that I often burp out loud. So does the negation of this answer weaken the argument? negation: A driver often needs to go over the speed limit to make an evasive maneuver to prevent an accident. This would weaken. This means that in Plan World, the new anti-speeding devices might prevent some accidents that would have involved speeding drivers, but you're also going to create a bunch of accidents that would have been avoided, if drivers had the ability to temporarily speed up. Since the negation of the answer choice weakens the argument, it's our correct answer.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    70% picked this

  4. Most drivers who exceed the

    Out of Scope: unintentional

    Whether or not they intended to speed or not will be irrelevant once their car has the anti-speeding device installed. People who accidentally speed and people who intentionally speed will both be capped out at going the speed limit.

    14% picked this

  5. Even if the fines for

    Out of Scope: other Plans

    The author never said this is the only Plan, the best Plan, the Plan we should do. He descriptively stated that "installing these devices would prevent most accidents". The only opinion in there is whether Cause would lead to Effect. So he's not assuming Other Plans, such as increasing fines for speeding, couldn't also be used to reduce the incidence of speeding.

    12% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free