Logical Reasoning

PT125 · S4 · Q15 Singletary: We of Citizens for

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

Singletary: We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object to the city's new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets.

Conclusion

Passing this helmet law shows that the city is more concerned with looking like it’s helping bike-safety than with actually helping bike-safety.

Evidence

If the city really wanted a safer environment for bikes, it wouldn’t require helmets; it would add bike lanes and educate drivers in bike safety.

Evaluation

“Driver’s Ed” shows up in the premise. The author says that driver’s ed and bike lanes would be two legitimate ways to increase safety for bikers. Since the city isn’t choosing to do either of those, the author concludes the city isn’t genuinely interested in bike safety.

Goal

We can look for something that sounds like, or something more relational like .

15.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in Singletary's argument by the statement that mentions driver education?

It is cited as evidence
Out Of Scope: “misunderstands”
Close, but the author isn’t saying the city misunderstands what to do. Instead, she’s more cynically concluding that the city knows better but they’re just concerned with appearing like they’re doing something by mandating helmets.
25% picked this
Correct
It is used as partial
Why this is right
It is part of the evidence/support. The conclusion in the last sentence is indeed about the motivation/concern of the city. “Partial Support” is just a phrase they use when there’s more than one Premise.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
62% picked this
It is offered as evidence
Too Strong
Too Strong: “total ineffectiveness” / Bad Conclusion Match This claim is part of the evidence, but the conclusion in the last sentence says nothing about the total ineffectiveness of the helmet law.
3% picked this
It is offered as an
Out Of Scope: "will take”
Almost, but it’s offered as an example of a measure the city should take or would take, if it were genuinely concerned with bike safety. This answer says that driver’s ed is being brought up as an actual thing the city plans to do now that the helmet law is done.
5% picked this
It is presented as an
Out Of Scope: “its public image”
Close, but the illustration of the city’s interest in public image (appearance of safety) is the helmet law. The passage of the ordinance reveals that the city has an overriding interest in public image. The fact that the city is eschewing either of the legit methods to increase bike safety (bike lanes / driver’s education) in favor of doing this helmet law is illustrating that the city cares more about the appearance of safety than actual safety. But is “the appearance of safety” the same as “the city’s public image”? That’s a drift. And the statement that mentions driver’s education doesn’t, by itself, illustrate the city’s real motives. It’s only when you package that statement together with other claims that the author can claim where the city’s overriding interests lie.
5% 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