Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT134 S1 Q18 Explanation

Traffic engineers have increased

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

TopicsMust be True

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

Traffic engineers have increased the capacity of the Krakkenbak Bridge to handle rush-hour traffic flow. The resultant increase in rush-hour traffic flow would not have occurred had the city not invested in computer modeling technology last year at the request of the city’s mayor, and the city’s financial predicament across the bridge during rush hour had not been increased.

What this question is testing

Must be True

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
18.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope1% picked this

    The city's financial predicament would not have been resolved had the city chosen a competing

    A competing computer modeling software package is not discussed.

  2. Correct84% picked this

    The city's financial predicament would not have been resolved had the city not invested in

    Why this is right

    This follows the 1st ~ICM ? ~?TF and 2nd statements. ~?TF ? ~RFP ~ICM ? ~RFP

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

  3. Too Strong3% picked this

    On an average day, more traffic crosses the Krakkenbak Bridge this year as compared

    Could be false. We only know about the flow of traffic during rush hour. It’s possible that the flow of traffic during non-peak traffic has decreased enough that the daily average could have decreased as well. Furthermore, we don’t know how long the bridge has been completed. Comparing this year with last year would require knowing when the bridge was completed.

  4. Too Strong6% picked this

    Traffic flow across the Krakkenbak Bridge during rush hour would not have increased had the city's mayor not made investing in computer modeling technology

    We don’t know that the mayor made investing in computer modeling technology the highest budgetary priority last year.

  5. Premise Support6% picked this

    The city's mayor was a proponent of investing in computer modeling technology because of the city's need to increase traffic flow across

    While we know the mayor was a proponent of computer modeling technology, we do not know why.

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