At the request of Grove

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

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

At the request of Grove Park residents, speed bumps were installed on all streets in their neighborhood. However, although through traffic does cause noise and congestion in Grove Park, this remedy is blatantly unfair. The neighborhood is not a private community, and its streets were have the right to use them whenever they please.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

15.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the

Answer choices

Not an Objection2% picked this
ignores the possibility that speed bumps may not reduce the speeds at which drivers drive
If we interpreted this answer as saying, "Hey, author, anyone can still use the road. You don't have to slow down as you drive through the neighborhood", it would have some pushback, but its force is very weak. And the answer isn't pointing out the logical disconnect between "free to use the road" and "speed bumps". It's just saying speed bumps might not reduce driver speed. That might even be interpreted as HELPING the author. "These speed bumps are unfair AND they're not even going to accomplish their goal!"
2%
Not a Reasoning Critique8% picked this
neglects the possibility that drivers frequently drive through the neighborhood at
This sounds like it's an argument in favor of installing speed bumps, so it's pushing back against our author who thinks that speed bumps are unfair. But this isn't addressing the author's reasoning at all. It doesn't address the issue of whether speed bumps lead to a public road being inaccessible to any drivers.
8%
Not Necessary2% picked this
provides no evidence that drivers have complained about the new speed bumps
In order to prove that something is unfair, you don't need to demonstrate that anyone has complained about it being unfair. People might accept unfair treatment stoically and silently. Their lack of protest wouldn't show an absence of wrongdoing.
2%
Opposite6% picked this
contains the tacit assumption that residents of neighborhoods should have the right to restrict traffic
This author is saying that a traffic restriction prompted by residents of this neighborhood is unfair. So it doesn't feel like she's tacitly endorsing the idea of resident-sponsored traffic restrictions.
6%
Correct83% picked this
presumes, without providing justification, that speed bumps do prevent drivers from using the roads on which
Why this is right
Yes, this gets to the Irrelevant Response. What does "speed bumps" have to do with "we all have the right to use these roads"? The author is assuming that speed bumps somehow impinge on people ability to use the roads.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83%

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