Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q21 A small car offers less protection

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 small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car does, but since a smaller car is more maneuverable, it is better to drive a small car because then accidents will be less likely.

Conclusion (better = opinion)

It's better to drive a small car.

Evidence (since / because)

Even though a small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car does, you're less likely to get into an accident because smaller cars are more maneuverable.

Evaluate

This is a Comparative argument. We're saying one thing is better than another. And we're weighing positive and negative tradeoffs.

The negative about small cars is that if you get into an accident, you'll get crunched and more likely hurt.

The positive about small cars is that since they're more maneuverable, it's easier to steer clear of accidents.

Since the author concludes that it's better to drive small cars, she thinks there's a net gain. The positive outweighs the negative. Why?

Well, the negative about small cars only comes into play if you get into an accident. But the positive about small cars helps you avoid getting into an accident. The positive beats the negative because the positive makes the negative less likely to happen in the first place.

Goal

Let's look for an argument where the author chooses one thing over another, mentioning a positive and a negative, and thinking that the positive outweighs the negative.

(In this case, the positive outweighed the negative by making the negative thing less likely to occur. But it's hard to know whether to get that granular with our pre-phrase.)

21.

Which one of the following arguments employs reasoning most similar to that employed by the argument above?

  1. An artist’s best work is

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion is not offering a comparison (X is better than Y). It's a causal claim (X can do Y). So we can scrap it without reading the rest.

    1% picked this

  2. It is best to insist

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion is superlative (best), not comparative. It's not comparing a binary like smaller vs. larger, where each one has a positive and a negative in the comparison. It's saying "insisting that a kid spend at least some time every day reading indoors" is better than all other options? Really, it's not using "it's best" in the sense of "top-ranked". It's using "it's best" in the giving-advice sense: Whoa, dude. What are you doing? You're texting her back immediately? You guys just met. It's best to delay a little.

    9% picked this

  3. For this work, vehicles built

    Weak Evidence Match

    This is definitely surviving on the first pass (for most of us). It's making a comparison. It's saying lightweight vehicles are more practical. The negative? Lightweights don't last as long as heavyweights. The positive? Lightweights are cheaper to replace. Ultimately this answer loses to the correct answer because when it comes to lightweights, we don't have that extra layer of similarity: the positive feature makes the negative feature less likely to even happen. In this story, the negative keeps happening (the vehicles wear out) and then the positive follows (well, at least it's cheap to replace). In the other stories, the positive happens (more maneuverability) and makes the negative less likely to occur (avoided getting into accidents).

    15% picked this

  4. Although it is important to

    Weak Conclusion / Evidence Match

    The main conclusion here is not a comparison. It's the sentiment "it would be a mistake to have a no sugar / no fat diet". But it is supported by a comparative intermediate conclusion: "it's better to consume sugar / fat in moderation". If we're being charitable, we can work with this. The author is saying a diet with moderate sugar / fat is better than one with no sugar / fat. The negative of the moderate sugar / fat diet? Hmm. It doesn't really say a negative. It's just says that we want to limit sugar and fat in our diet, so a diet with no sugar / fat would be farther in a positive direction. The positive of the moderate sugar / fat diet? It makes you less likely to have a huge sugar / fat binge. So is that positive part outweighing the negative because it's making the negative less likely to happen? The negative of the moderate diet would be "it's not as low in sugar / fat as a no-sugar / no-fat diet". The positive part of the moderate diet is that you won't have huge sugar / fat binges. We can't logically say that the positive part makes the negative part less likely to happen.

    9% picked this

  5. Correct

    A person who exercises vigorously

    Why this is right

    The conclusion is not an explicit comparison, but it is making a recommendation. Recommendations are implicitly comparisons. For example, if I say, "If you're going to Martha's, you should take the 101, not the 134", I'm saying taking the 101 is better than taking the 134. The conclusion of the original argument could be heard as "you should drive a small car". So this is saying "exercising vigorously every day is better than not doing so". The negative? You'll burn off all your body fat, and in doing so you'd be more vulnerable were you to get a wasting illness (a disease that steadily eats away at your stores of fat). A 200 lb. man could contract a wasting illness and ultimately survive it, even though the illness may have decimated him down to 150 lbs. Meanwhile a frail 150 lb. man who contracts a wasting illness might not survive the illness. The positive? You're way less likely to contract a wasting illness. This beats the other answers because it matches the original argument, in terms of the relationship between the positive and the negative. The positive of vigorous daily exercise (way less likely to contract a wasting illness) makes the negative (you'd be screwed if you got a wasting illness) less likely to matter.

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

    66% 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