Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S1 · Q25 Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency

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

Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency.

Conclusion (therefore)

Manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency.

Intermediate Conclusion

Some people suggest that auto manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency, but greater fuel efficiency from smaller cars is not worth the added risk to human lives.

Evidence

Smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged in collisions and provide less protection for their occupants.

Evaluate

Since there doesn't seem to be an obvious Famous Flaw going on, we can switch into trying to argue the Anti-Conclusion:

Given that ... smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged in collisions and provide less protection for their occupants (an added risk to human life that isn't worth the greater fuel efficiency),

How can we argue that ... manufacturers should seek to increase fuel efficiency?

Well, maybe instead of making cars smaller, they could increase fuel efficiency by using a hybrid gas/electric engine? Maybe they could make it so that people can't waste gas by accelerating too fast or going way faster than 55mph.

In a sense it seems like the argument shot down the idea of making cars smaller, but then it concluded that manufacturers shouldn't seek to increase fuel efficiency at all.

Goal

Let's look for something like,

25.

The reasoning in the gas station owner's argument is flawed because the argument

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Not Assumed / Too Strong: impossible

    This answer is somewhat tempting because it does feel like the author is "stuck" thinking that smaller cars are more dangerous. But is she really assuming that it's impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars? If we negated this assumption and said, "It's possible to reduce the likelihood dangerous accidents for small cars", the author's argument wouldn't really be hurt. She would say, "Sure. I know it's possible to make any car somewhat safer. But the fact will still remain that smaller cars, in virtue of being smaller, will always provide less protection for their occupants than bigger cars will." Or maybe she'd say, "Sure, you can make smaller cars safer by building their frames out of stronger, heavier materials, but then they won't be more fuel efficient." Overall, we want to be very nervous about accusing authors of assuming extreme ideas, and it's pretty crazy-town to say someone believes that it's impossible to make smaller cars somewhat safer.

    11% picked this

  2. Correct

    concludes, on the basis of

    Why this is right

    This has the form, concludes, on the basis of X, that Y so we want to check whether Y matches the Conclusion and X matches the evidence. Did the author conclude "that an end should not be pursued"? Yes, he concluded that manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency. That is a goal, an end. Did the evidence say that "one means to achieving increased fuel efficiency is unacceptable"? Yes, it conveyed the idea that trying to achieve increased fuel efficiency via smaller cars is unacceptable. So the answer matches the reasoning. Is this objectionable reasoning? Sure. Just because one way to achieve X isn't acceptable doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue X. Even if we accept that making cars smaller isn't an acceptable way to achieve greater fuel efficiency (because it increases the safety risk to occupants of the car), that's no reason to totally give up on trying to increase fuel efficiency. Maybe it can be done a different way.

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

    81% picked this

  3. draws a conclusion about what

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer has the form draws a conclusion about X from premises all of which are about Y so we should ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion about "what should be done"? Kind of. It's technically saying that something should not be done, but it seems like we could still interpret that as a conclusion about what should be done. Are the premises all about factual matters only? No. The final premise before the conclusion is a value judgment, not a fact: greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives.

    1% picked this

  4. presupposes the truth of what

    Not Circular

    This answer alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or assumes it to be true. There's no premise in this argument that requires the conclusion to be true. Answers describing Circular Reasoning are almost always wrong.

    1% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Trap

    Not Assumed / Too Strong: the only way The author seems to be assuming that "making cars smaller" is the only way to increase fuel efficiency. But she hasn't said anything that makes it seem like she thinks that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution.

    6% 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