Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S4 · Q1 A company produced a small 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

A company produced a small car that costs much less—but is also much less safe—than any car previously available.

Given that...

A company produced a small car that costs much less—but is also much less safe—than any car previously available.

How can it be that...

Most customers of the new car increased their safety on the roads by buying it.

Evaluate / Goal

We're told that this small car is much less safe when compared to other cars, which leads us to believe that the customers of the new car would decrease their safety by driving it. Why have most customers increased their safety?

Perhaps people who buy this car tend to do something that increases their safety on the roads. Maybe they drive more carefully because they know the car is much less safe.

We're also told that the car costs much less, so maybe the drivers are doing something with the money they save which increases their safety. Maybe they buy tires more often, so they're less likely to have an accident caused by worn-out tires.

A correct answer could suggest one of these possibilities, or perhaps some other factor that helps the drivers of these cars increase their safety on the roads.

1.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the apparent paradox in the above claims?

  1. The company surveyed potential customers

    Opposite

    Opposite If potential customers are more concerned about cost than safety, this doesn't explain how they increase their safety on the roads. If anything, it indicates that they would be less safe.

    1% picked this

  2. The company could significantly increase

    No Impact

    Something that the company "could" do doesn't impact what has already happened. The stimulus indicates that customers have already increased their safety by buying the car.

    1% picked this

  3. Most people who bought the

    Opposite (if anything)

    It's not clear how this impacts the apparent paradox of customers increasing their safety by buying this car. If anything, being unaware of the safety issue would make them less likely to drive more carefully, which would be the opposite of what we're looking for.

    2% picked this

  4. Many households that previously could

    Opposite (if anything)

    This would seem to mean that it's easier for someone to buy one of these cars, even if they already have a car. It's not clear how that would help people who own the new car increase their safety. This could also mean that families are buying more than one of these rolling death traps, which might be the opposite of what we're looking for, if anything.

    0% picked this

  5. Correct

    Most people who bought the

    Why this is right

    The stimulus compares the new small car to "any car previously available," but doesn't state how safe the new car is compared to other forms of transportation, like riding a bicycle or motorcycle. If this answer choice is true, people who buy the new car are safer because they're no longer using more dangerous methods of transportation. Wear your helmets, kids.

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

    96% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

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