Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S4 · Q18 Bus driver: Had the garbage truck

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

Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit, it would not have collided with the bus I was driving.

Conclusion

The bus company should not reprimand me for the accident.

Evidence

Even though I might have been able to avoid the collision if I had reacted more quickly, the garbage truck that hit me was over the speed limit, and this speeding directly led to the accident. Meanwhile, I was abiding by all traffic regulations.

Evaluation

We know we need the right side of → should not the arrow on this reprimand me rule to be saying

What were his reasons why? - the other driver was breaking the law by speeding, and the speeding was a causal factor in the accident. - he was not breaking any law

He also acknowledged a counterpoint, that he probably could have still avoided the accident, but that's not a reason why he shouldn't be reprimanded. It's potentially a reason why he should be reprimanded.

Goal

Something like, If I was following the rules and the other driver broke a rule which led to the accident, then I shouldn't be reprimanded (even if I could've reacted quicker)

18.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the bus driver's argument?

If a vehicle whose driver
Weak Conclusion Match
This one is very tempting, since the trigger of the rule fits the facts of our argument. However, the conclusion isn't about who is solely responsible for the accident, it's about whether the bus company should / shouldn't reprimand this driver. The bus company could be like, "Yes, obviously it was the garbage truck driver's fault, but we're still mad that you didn't avoid the accident, since now we have to deal with getting the bus repaired."
13% picked this
A bus company should not
Bad Premise Match
Now we have the right conclusion, but we can't trigger this rule. Police report should confirms Driver 2 ? not totally at fault reprimand Did a police report confirm Driver 2 was to blame? Not that we've heard of.
12% picked this
Whenever a bus driver causes
Illegal Opposite
This is doing an Illegal Opposite move. We would have liked a rule that looked like: Driver didn't should break any ? not traffic rule reprimand And this is just negating each side and saying, "If the driver did break a rule, they should be reprimanded."
2% picked this
A company that employs bus
Bad Premise Match
This rule looks like this: driver could not should have been expected ? not be to avoid accident reprimanded In the case of this bus driver, was it established that he couldn't have been expected to avoid the accident? No. Actually, almost the opposite of that was established.
2% picked this
Correct
When a bus is involved
Why this is right
bus collision didn't should not be in a + result from bus ? reprimanded collision driver breaking for the accident a rule Was it established that this collision didn't result from the driver breaking a rule? Yes, because we know this driver didn't break a rule. The other driver did break a rule. And the collision would not have happened if the other driver hadn't been speeding. The collision resulted from the garbage truck's breaking of the speed limit.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
71% 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