PT151 S4 Q10 ExplanationResearcher: Overhearing only one side

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Causal Relationship2% picked this

   The risk that a driver will cause an accident is increased when the driver is talking

   This is saying that the driver's risk of being in an accident is increased when they are on a phone, but the causal relationship the passage was describing was having your attention compromised by someone else being on the phone, with you trying to eavesdrop. If this said, "the risk of accident is increased when the driver is listening in on someone else's cell-phone call", then it would be worth considering

   2%
2. B

   Correct84% picked this

   When a driver hears a passenger in the driver's vehicle talking on a cell phone, that detracts

   Why this is right

   The causal relationship we got was that when you're listening in on someone's cell phone conversation, your attention is diverted. So we know that a driver's attention would be diverted from driving, if they're eavesdropping on someone's cell phone conversation. If your attention is diverted from what you're doing while you're driving, does that "detract from your driving performance"? Sure! No one is saying you can't still drive / that it's a dealbreaker for your driving. Heaven knows I have eaten lasagna off a plate in my lap as I drove. You can still successfully drive, but I will admit it detracted from my performance. Since this is Most Supported, the language doesn't have to be perfect. If we know that the driver's attention is diverted away from driving, does that support the idea that the driver's performance is less than it would be otherwise? Sure.

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

   84%
3. C

   Out of Scope: traditional telephone1% picked this

   Overhearing one side of a conversation on a traditional telephone does not divert listeners' attention

   This is the classic trap answer form of, "The opposite is true about the thing we didn't talk about". LSAC wants to see if students will think, "Since they only mentioned X about Thing A, I guess things that aren't Thing A don't have X true about them". We can't make that inference. If I say "black lives matter", that doesn't mean we can infer that "lives that aren't black don't matter".

   1%
4. D

   Too Strong: inevitably12% picked this

   People who overhear one side of a cell-phone conversation inevitably lose track

   We know that people who overhear one side of a cell-phone have their attention diverted from whatever they are doing. Can we go from "your attention was diverted from what you were doing" to "you inevitably lose track of your thoughts"? No. We could definitely support language like "sometimes you lose track of your thoughts", but we can't support that in 100% of cases you lose track of your thoughts. Someone may be driving to a concert thinking, "Where should I look for parking", then start to get warped into hearing their friend talk to someone on the cell phone. They hear some of the friend and then come back to looking for parking. They didn't "lose track of their thoughts". They just started paying attention to someone else's conversation and then resumed their thought process once the call was over or their curiosity had subsided.

   12%
5. E

   Unsupported Comparison: more guesses1% picked this

   Conversing on a cell phone requires making more guesses about what one's conversational partner means than other

   The paragraph never talks about other types of conversations. This is the classic trap answer form of, "The opposite is true about the thing we didn't talk about". LSAC wants to see if students will think, "Since they only mentioned X about Thing A, I guess things that aren't Thing A don't have X true about them". "Since they only talked about making guesses about a cell phone conversation, I guess people don't make guesses about other types of conversations". We can't make that inference.

   1%