Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q1 In constructing a self-driving robotic car

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

In constructing a self-driving robotic car, engineers face the challenge of designing a car that avoids common traffic problems like crashes and congestion.

Setup Claims

Engineers trying to construct a self-driving robotic car face the challenge of designing a car that avoids common crashes and congestion.

These problems can also affect fish traveling together in schools.

But, the principles fish use to navigate in schools ensure that these problems are much less common within schools of fish than among cars on the road.

The Blank

Hence . Since the blank is prefaced by a conclusion indicator, we want our answer to draw a logical conclusion, like on a Must Be True / Most Supported question.

Evaluate

Like many other Fill in the Blank questions, this argument contains an analogy, and the conclusion seems to be inviting us to carry over what we heard about fish schools to what we're saying about robotic cars.

They both face problems with crashes and congestion.

The navigation principles fish use help them avoid such events.

Goal

So let's look for a safely worded answer that sounds like, .

1.

Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?

  1. constructing a self-driving robotic car

    Too Strong: requires expertise

    We want something like, "maybe it could be helpful for engineers working on self-driving robotic cars to look into the navigation principles that fish schools use". We don't want an extreme (and absurd sounding) claim like, "You cannot construct a self-driving robotic car without expertise in fish biology!" We're not saying we need to know everything about fish biology, just these navigational principles. And we're not saying we need these navigational principles, just that they might be useful.

    0% picked this

  2. the best drivers use the

    Too Strong: best / same

    Again, we have very clear and present danger with this toxic, extreme wording. We were never talking about the best drivers, and the idea that they use navigational principles that are identical to what fish use goes against common sense. This paragraph is more about the flow of many drivers / many fish, not about the individual excellence of great drivers.

    0% picked this

  3. it is always advisable for

    Too Strong: always

    Once again, there's a flaming hot word telling us to look elsewhere. This paragraph only talks about the natural world providing some guidance when it comes to self-driving cars. We have no idea whether the natural world frequently / usually / always provides guidance in addressing a design challenge. If this answer is changed to "it is sometimes advisable", we would definitely consider it.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    studying the principles fish use

    Why this is right

    This is essentially what we predicted. It doesn't go overboard with its language, saying only that "studying the navigation principles could / may / might help engineers solve their traffic problems". This carries over a similarity from the fish analogy. Both fish and robotic cars are trying to solve similar problems. Fish solve it using these navigational principles. Thus, robotic cars might be able to also solve it using these navigational principles.

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

    95% picked this

  5. a self-driving robotic car using

    Unknown Comparison: robotic vs. human

    We don't have the means to compare the crash/congestion rate of robot cars to human cars. Since we think that the fish's navigational principles could be useful, we could probably say that "a self-driving robotic car using the navigational principles that fish use in schools might be better than one that doesn't use such principles at avoiding crashes and congestion". But comparing a robot's ability to avoid crashes and traffic to a human's is beyond the scope of anything we talked about.

    3% 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