Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S1 Q2 Explanation

We already knew from thorough

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

TopicsEvaluate

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

Start practicing free

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

We already knew from thorough investigation that immediately prior to the accident, either the driver of the first vehicle changed lanes without signaling or the driver of the second vehicle was driving with excessive speed. Either of these actions would make a driver liable for the resulting accident. But further evidence has So the driver of the second vehicle is not liable for the accident.

What this question is testing

Evaluate

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence 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
2.

Which one of the following would be most important to know in evaluating the

Answer choices

  1. Correct88% picked this

    whether the second vehicle was being driven at

    Why this is right

    If the 2nd driver was speeding, then he is also liable. If we wasn’t, then the author’s conclusion is probably correct.

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

  2. Irrelevant Distinction: "aware vs. not aware"4% picked this

    whether the driver of the first vehicle knew that the turn signal

    We don’t care whether the driver was aware of not having the signal on. The legal definition for liability doesn’t say anything about awareness. As long as we know 1st driver changed lanes without signaling, we know she is liable.

  3. Out Of Scope: “other vehicles”0% picked this

    whether any other vehicles were involved in

    The conclusion is assessing whether or not the 2nd driver is liable. Whether other cars were involved is irrelevant to that assessment (because more than one car can be liable).

  4. Out Of Scope: “reliable witness”1% picked this

    whether the driver of the first vehicle was a

    The 1st driver’s testimony only concerns whether she switched lanes. If she’s unreliable, then maybe she didn’t switch lanes. But that would still have no impact on whether the 2nd driver is liable, because ascertaining that revolves totally around whether that driver was speeding.

  5. Irrelevant Distinction7% picked this

    whether the driver of the second vehicle would have seen the turn signal flashing had

    Irrelevant Distinction: "noticing vs. not noticing turn signal" In assessing the 2nd driver’s liability, all we need to know is whether or not she was speeding. It’s irrelevant whether she would have noticed a turn signal, in this hypothetical world.

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