Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S1 · Q2 Policy analyst: Those concerned

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

Policy analyst: Those concerned with safeguarding public health by reducing the risk of traffic fatalities typically focus their efforts on automotive safety measures such as increasing seat belt use, reducing distracted driving, and improving automotive technology.

Conclusion

What would contribute the most to safeguarding public health is a reduction in total miles traveled on our roads.

Evidence

Traveling by car is itself a major risk factor.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion or Role, we specifically listen for upside-down arguments, where the Conclusion appears earlier than the Evidence.

The two dominant patterns on Main Conclusion are that the conclusion is - the First Sentence or - some Pivot / Rebuttal idea

The first sentence of this argument isn't the author's opinion, so it won't be the conclusion. Instead, it's an attribution: Those concerned with X typically focus their efforts on Y.

That would lead us to anticipate a Pivot / Rebuttal. Sure enough, we get the But to start the 2nd sentence. Is this claim an opinion from our author?

Yes! She's saying what she thinks would contribute the most to public health.

Is this claim Supported (as all conclusions must be)?

Yes, the last sentence is a "fact" that supports it.

Goal

Look for an answer that captures the meaning of the 2nd sentence. It might take on more language that feels like the Rebuttal:

2.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the overall conclusion drawn in the policy analyst's argument?

  1. Public health can be safeguarded

    Bad Match

    This somewhat resembles the 2nd sentence, because it mentions "public health", but the 2nd sentence is specifically saying "the #1 thing we can do for safeguarding public health is reducing total miles traveled". This answer doesn't capture that part at all.

    1% picked this

  2. Those concerned with safeguarding public

    Bad Match

    This somewhat resembles the 2nd sentence, because it mentions "public health", but the 2nd sentence is specifically saying "the #1 thing we can do for safeguarding public health is reducing total miles traveled". This answer doesn't capture that part at all.

    1% picked this

  3. Increasing seat belt use, reducing

    Opposite

    This is more like the claim that the author is rebutting. This doesn't resemble the 2nd sentence at all.

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    A reduction in total miles

    Why this is right

    This matches the meaning of the 2nd sentence, which was our main conclusion. It was an opinion from the author and it was supported by the 3rd sentence.

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

    92% picked this

  5. Traveling by car is itself

    Premise Last-Claim Trap

    This is the 3rd sentence, which was a premise. We don't expect the last claim to be the conclusion on Main Conclusion or Role. It will be sometimes, but we should always second guess ourselves if we're picking the last claim, because it's a common trap answer that students walk into out of force of habit. For any other question type besides Main Conclusion / Role, the most likely place for the conclusion is the final claim.

    6% 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