Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q23 Safety expert: Conversing on a cell

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

Safety expert: Conversing on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than conversing with a passenger in the vehicle.

Conclusion

Talking on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than talking with someone in the vehicle while driving.

Intermediate Conclusion

The person on the phone can't immediately recognize when driving is becoming difficult.

Evidence

The person on the phone can't see the driving situation. Meanwhile, a conversation partner inside the vehicle will usually shut up or say something helpful if it's a difficult driving situation.

Evaluate

There is a missing link in going from the first half of the second sentence to the second half of the second sentence: if you can't see a driving situation, then you can't immediately recognize when driving becomes difficult.

This is pretty reasonable, but one could attack its veracity -- maybe you can hear a difference in the person you're talking to and that tells you that they are confronting a difficult driving situation.

Nevertheless, it's probably not that likely that LSAC is testing that assumption.

The bigger gap would be getting from "what's different" between cell phone conversation and in-car conversation to "more / less dangerous".

Goal

The author is assuming that , or, equivalently,

23.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the safety expert's argument?

  1. Correct

    Speaking to a driver during

    Why this is right

    Since "unless" can be diagrammed as "if-not" (i.e. "if it is not the case that ..."), we could represent this answer with this conditional: not providing → talking to driver during diff helpful warnings situation increases risk When we have a "nested unless" conditional, like If X, then Y, unless Z we can add the negated form of Z to get X and ~Z → Y So another way to think of this answer is, Speaking to driver during difficult driving situation increases risk and → of accident not helpful warnings When Necessary Assumption answers are conditional, we can ask ourselves, "Did the author make that move?" Sure! The author thinks that talking on a phone is more dangerous than talking with someone in the car, because the person on the phone keeps talking during a dangerous driving situation. So, yes, the author is assuming "If you're talking to the driver (continuing the conversation) when things get difficult, it's more dangerous".

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

    64% picked this

  2. A driver having a conversation

    Irrelevant Comparison

    The author's argument is only comparing talking on cell vs. talking to passenger phone while driving while driving This answer is comparing: not talking during vs. talking to passenger difficult situation during difficult situation That comparison is out of scope, since it has nothing to do with the comparison made in the conclusion. If we negated this, it would sound like "talking to a passenger is substantially more dangerous than not talking to a passenger, during a difficult driving situation". That wouldn't weaken the author's argument; it actually seems to agree with the author's argument, since our author thinks that "talking = more dangerous" and thus that "passengers, who can see that they should stop talking = less dangerous".

    18% picked this

  3. People who use cell phones

    Out of Scope: believe

    This argument isn't about what people believe is more / less dangerous. It's only about what is more / less dangerous. This argument doesn't have to assume anything about what people believe.

    2% picked this

  4. Helpful warnings given to a

    Opposite, if Anything

    There's no reason to say the author must be thinking that helpful warnings are just as likely to be a distraction as they are to help. If they're helpful warnings, then by definition they're providing some benefit. The author's final sentence makes it seem like passengers are doing something good by either being quiet or offering helpful warnings.

    4% picked this

  5. Conversing on a cell phone

    Unknown Comparison

    This one feels pretty tempting. We know the author thinks that cell phone conversations are more dangerous because the conversationalist keeps talking, so it feels reasonable to think that a talking passenger would be roughly the same element of distraction/danger. But if we negate this, would it weaken? negation: talking on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than talking to a passenger who keeps talking. No, that would strengthen the conclusion, by making it sound like talking with someone on a cell phone while driving is more dangerous than talking with a passenger. If the negation doesn't weaken (let alone, strengthens), then it can't be a correct answer.

    12% 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