Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q4 Marianna: The problem of drunk driving

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

Marianna: The problem of drunk driving has been somewhat ameliorated by public education and stricter laws.

M's Claim

When someone drinks and drives, they greatly increase the probability that they will cause an accident involving death or serious injury.

D's response

Drinking and driving isn't that dangerous. Actually you're less likely to get injured in an accident if you're drunk than if you're sober.

Evaluate

David is just saying that "IF we're in an accident", we'll be better off drunk, but he's missing the fact that we might not even get into an accident if we're not drunk.

Also, he's only talking about whether the drunk driver gets injured. What about people in the other cars or pedestrians on the road that might get injured or killed by the drunk driver?

Goal

Look for an answer bringing up the distinction between , or one raising the objection that even if the drunk driver is safer, they might be endangering other people.

4.

In responding to Marianna’s argument, David makes which one of the following errors of reasoning?

  1. He contradicts himself.

    Wrong Flaw

    Nothing he says contradicts itself. Internal Contradiction is one of the ten Famous Flaws, but it's almost always wrong.

    4% picked this

  2. He assumes what he is

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes Circular Reasoning, one of the ten Famous Flaws, but it's almost always wrong. It means that the conclusion is restatement of the premise. David definitely had a premise that was distinct from his conclusion, so it wasn't circular.

    4% picked this

  3. He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without

    Does Give Evidence

    He offers evidence, the claim about drunk people being less likely to be injured in an accident than sober people.

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    He argues against a point

    Why this is right

    Yes, this is capturing the fact that David is only looking out for the drunk drivers, whereas Marianna was worried about the health of others as well. Also, Marianna is saying "you're more likely to get into an accident that causes death / injury", where as David is countering with by saying "in the event you ARE in an accident, you're less likely to be injured if drunk".

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

    75% picked this

  5. He directs his criticism against

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous flaw Ad Hominem, in which an author dismisses someone's argument by pointing to their ulterior motive, biased interest, or conflicting past behavior. But David doesn't say anything about Marianna's motives, biases, or past behavior.

    3% 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