Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q10 To accommodate the personal automobile

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

To accommodate the personal automobile, houses are built on widely scattered lots far from places of work and shopping malls are equipped with immense parking lots that leave little room for wooded areas.

Conclusion (hence)

If people hadn't generally been using personal automobiles, the geography of modern cities would be quite different from the one we have now.

Evidence

Houses are built on widely scattered lots, far from places of work / shopping malls have huge parking lots that leave little room for wooded areas, all to accommodate the personal automobile.

Evaluate

The author establishes that some of the geography of modern cities got the way it did because of trying to accommodate cars.

Her argument is essentially saying, In order to accommodate X, we made something that looked like Y. Thus, if we weren't trying to accommodate X, we would have made something that looks quite different from Y.

It's a variation on the Flip the Causal Difference-Maker inference that we see as a correct answer on Most Supported tasks. It is supportable to say, .

The author is only going too far by thinking it definitely would be quite different. How could we potentially argue that even if we hadn't been concerned with cars, we still would have had fairly similar geography to modern cities?

We'd probably just have to say that there could have been other factors that would have similarly inclined us towards having spaced apart houses and big parking lots eating up the forest space.

Goal

Look for a way to argue that .

10.

The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument

  1. Correct

    infers from the idea that

    Why this is right

    Since this answer takes the form, infers from X that Y we would check to see if X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause"? Yes, somewhat. The premise doesn't actually mention geography, but when the conclusion mentions the geography of cities it's clear that we're referring to the spaced houses and parking lots > forests from the premise. The author does indicate that these big features of urban geography were the result of accommodating cars. Is the conclusion acting like the current geography of cities could only result from accommodating cars? Yes, although we might not gravitate to that wording initially. The author is assuming, "If we weren't accommodating cars, we wouldn't have this geography", which contraposes into this: this geography ? accommodating cars And that conditional means "this geography requires accommodating cars". More conversationally, this answer is saying that the author looks at the fact that the geography of cities was shaped by the causal influence of accommodating cars and infers from this that if we hadn't been accommodating cars, we wouldn't have had this geography. That assumes that there aren't other things that could have similarly caused this geography. Or to restate that, that assumes that only accommodating cars would cause this geography.

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

    83% picked this

  2. infers from the idea that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Since this answer takes the form, infers from X that Y we would check to see if X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause"? Yes, as we discuss with (A), we can live with that characterization of the evidence. Is the conclusion acting like other factors of life (non-geographical parts of modern life) were caused by the car? Nope. The conclusion is just about the geography of modern cities.

    8% picked this

  3. overlooks the fact that many

    Not an Objection

    Not an Objection: also had an effect Since this has the fails to consider / overlooks the possibility prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid objection. Could it weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- many tech innovations have had some effect on the way people live"? No. The author isn't saying, "Cars affected how people live. Thus, they are uniquely evil." The author is just saying, "Cars affected the geography of cities. Thus, the geography would be different if hadn't been worried about cars." She has no problem agreeing that other tech innovations also have affected modern life. She overlooks the possibility that other technological innovations could have affected the geography of cities in ways similar to how cars did.

    7% picked this

  4. takes for granted that shopping

    Not Assumed: need large lots

    Since this has the takes for granted / presumes prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid assumption. Did the author need to assume that shopping malls don't need large parking lots. Would it weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- you know shopping malls do need large parking lots, given the use of cars?" Not at all. The author isn't ever challenging the idea that shopping malls need large parking lots in our current world. She is thinking that if we all relied on public transportation, then maybe shopping malls wouldn't need large parking lots.

    1% picked this

  5. takes for granted that people

    Not Assumed

    Not Assumed: want to give up cars Since this has the takes for granted / presumes prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid assumption. Did the author need to assume that people want to live without cars? Definitely not. The author isn't assuming anything about what people want. She's just assuming things about how the world would be different if people hadn't wanted cars.

    0% 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