Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q7 Transportation official: I reject the claim

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

Transportation official: I reject the claim that the ruts in our city's roads are caused by large trucks rather than studded snow tires.

Conclusion (Clearly)

Studded snow tires are to blame for the ruts in our city's roads.

Evidence

There are many places that have as much large truck traffic as we have here and also have similar snowfall, but only the few places that allow studded snow tires have ruts similar to ours.

Evaluate

Since the author is trying to solve the causal mystery of what causes the ruts in this city's roads, we can use our Explain Curious Fact mindset:

Curious Fact ... why do we have ruts in the road? Author's Explanation ... it's caused by studded snow tires.

We evaluate these by considering two things: 1. Could there be some Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? 2. How plausible is the Author's Explanation?

Could there be some different way to explain why the roads have ruts? The argument actually acknowledges and addresses one: what if the ruts are caused by large trucks? The author undermines the plausibility of this explanation by pointing to some Cause w/o Effect data points. There are lots of cities that have large trucks like this city but they don't have ruts.

The author supports the plausibility of his "studded tire" hypothesis by pointing to No Cause, No Effect data points. The places that don't allow studded snow tires do not have ruts, where as the the few places that do allow studded snow tires do have ruts.

Goal

It's a pretty compelling argument already, so it's a little hard to predict an answer. The argument already undermined an alternate explanation and supported the plausibility of the author's explanation.

But still, the correct answer will do even more: - rule out a different Alternate Explanation for the ruts in our roads (or further diminish the plausibility that it could be caused by trucks)

or, more likely,

- point to something else that adds even more plausibility to the hypothesis that studded snow tires cause the ruts (maybe the pattern of ruts exactly matches the pattern of studs on the tires, for example)

7.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the transportation official's argument?

  1. Large trucks are not allowed

    No Impact

    We don't car if other areas do or don't allow large trucks to have studded tires. We care about the ruts in the road in this area. Are they caused by studded tires, large trucks, or something else? This answer doesn't help us assess the causal mystery at all.

    8% picked this

  2. The number of ruts in

    Weakens

    This supports the plausibility of the Alternate Explanation that trucks are causing the ruts. If a decrease in trucks is followed by a decrease in ruts, it looks like trucks are causing the ruts.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    Most of the places that

    Why this is right

    These data points are even better than the ones the author already presented. In these other cities, studded tires are present / trucks are absent, and the ruts are there. That increases the plausibility that the ruts are connected to studded tires, and also decreases the plausibility that the ruts are connected to trucks. This basically supports the author's explanation and also undermines the alternate explanation.

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

    88% picked this

  4. Some cities with even more

    Too Weak: some Weakens, if anything

    Answers with weak language like "some" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, and Sufficient Assumption. Plus, this answer would just be weakening, since it's strengthening a connection between trucks and ruts, which is the Alternate Explanation, not the author's.

    1% picked this

  5. Most places that have little

    No Impact

    This answer about places where they don't have studded snow tires would only be relevant to us if we were told whether or not those places have ruts in the roads. If places that don't allow studded tires don't have ruts, then that would be a No Cause, No Effect strengthener. But we don't hear about whether these areas do or don't have ruts, so this answer has no value to us.

    1% 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