Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q1 A research study revealed

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

A research study revealed that, in most cases, once existing highways near urban areas are widened and extended in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion and resulting delays for motorists, these problems actually increase rather than decrease.

Background

Highways near urban areas are widened and lengthened in an attempt to reduce traffic congestion / delays.

Surprising Idea

The traffic congestion / delays get even worse!

Evaluation

Given that the highways are now wider (i.e. more lanes), we would think the same volume of cars would be less congested. We probably need a story where the volume of cars using the highway has also changed, or maybe their style of driving has changed (leading to more accidents, which cause congestion). Or maybe the newly built lanes were shoddily constructed and have potholes and using them leads to more accidents than before.

1.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the discrepancy between the intended results of the highway improvements and the results revealed in the study?

  1. Correct

    Widened and extended roads tend

    Why this is right

    If we made the roads 15% bigger, and now there are 20% more people driving on them, the congestion will have gotten worse. This answer gives us an accompanying change, "many more motorists", which certainly has a common sense connection to traffic congestion.

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

    93% picked this

  2. Typically, road widening or extension

    No Impact

    This almost sounds like the "what if there are more people on the road" line of objection, but this answer doesn't say "After the roads were widened, there were more people on the road". Instead, it suggests that the roads weren't widened until after population increase had already leveled off. If population was level, then they widened the roads, and THEN congestion got worse, then we wouldn't be able to explain the worsened congestion by saying "population went up".

    5% picked this

  3. As a general rule, the

    Opposite

    This answer could have worked if it switched "lower" to "greater" and gave us a way to say that now that the roads were widened there were more accidents than before.

    0% picked this

  4. Rural, as compared to urban,

    Out of Scope: rural

    The highway was widened near urban areas, so the comparison to rural areas is irrelevant.

    0% picked this

  5. Urban traffic generally moves at

    Out of Scope Comparison No Impact

    We only care about highways near urban areas. Moreover, this answer describes a static (constant) truism about different areas. It doesn't connect in any way to the widening of the highway. In order to explain why congestion got worse, we need to be able to say that something else changed when they widened the highway, and this answer gives no ammunition for something else that changed.

    2% 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