Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q21 Driver: My friends say I will

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

Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident because I drive my sports car recklessly.

Conclusion (so)

Trading my sports car in for a minivan would lower my risk of having an accident.

Evidence

Minivans and larger sedans have very low accident rates compared to sports cars.

Evaluate

This might seem like a pretty reasonable argument, since minivans and large sedans have lower accident rates. If we have no intuitive objections, then we should try to argue the Anti-Conclusion:

Given that ... minivans and large sedans have lower accident rates than sports cars,

How could we argue that ... this dude would NOT lower his risk of having an accident by trading in his sports car for a minivan?

We could argue that it depends on the sports car and the minivan. This research is talking about those classes of cars in general, but if you drove the safest sports car and traded it in for the least-safe minivan, you might be at equal or greater risk.

Maybe his sports car has attributes that the minivan doesn't that would contribute to avoiding an accident: better brakes / better steering control / better tires / etc.

Finally, we might pick up on the breadcrumb being laid down in the first sentence. If this dude is a reckless driver, then it doesn't really matter what type of car he drives. If you drive a minivan recklessly, you also will be at a higher risk for an accident.

In fact, maybe the reason minivans and large sedans have lower accident rates is not because of the car itself, but because the people who typically drive those vehicles (parents of young children and elderly people, respectively) are more likely to be cautious drivers.

Goal

Let's look for an answer that would allow us to argue that makes it seem like minivans are not inherently safer than sports cars or that give us a way to argue that he would be at just as high a risk of getting into an accident even if he drove a miniva.

21.

The reasoning in the driver's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument

  1. Correct

    infers a cause from a

    Why this is right

    The evidence involves a correlation between minivans and lower accident rates. And the conclusion assumes that the minivan itself is causing the lower accident rate (when the correlation could be explained different ways -- maybe the correlation is based on a Third Factor, like who is driving this car .... perhaps parents of young children are more likely to buy minivans and more likely to drive them cautiously, whereas people with aggressive / reckless personalities are more likely to buy sports cars and to drive them recklessly). The conclusion does contain a causal verb, "lower", so the author is saying that the minivan itself would lower his risk of having an accident.

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

    63% picked this

  2. relies on a sample that

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws (Sampling), but there is no reason to believe the research conducted by the driver is too narrow.

    1% picked this

  3. misinterprets evidence that a result

    Bad Evidence Match

    This alludes to a semi-Famous Flaw we might call Possible/Likely vs. Certain. The conclusion does feel certain of itself, "driving a minivan WOULD lower my risk of accident". Did the evidence say that "driving a minivan would likely lower the risk of accident"? No, the evidence is just a correlation saying minivans and large sedans have lower accident rates.

    15% picked this

  4. mistakes a condition sufficient for

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws (Nec vs. Suff), in which the author presents a conditional logic relationship in the evidence and then reasons via an illegal negation or reversal. But there is no conditional logic relationship in the evidence. Just a correlation.

    20% picked this

  5. relies on a source that

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws (Inappropriate Appeals), in which the argument's evidence is leaning on the testimony of someone who is not shown to be qualified to weigh in on the matter at hand. But the only source relied on is "some research", and we have no reason to think that the sources the author researched are probably not well-informed.

    1% 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