Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT18 S2 Q4 Explanation

Marianna: The problem of drunk driving

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Marianna: The problem of drunk driving has been somewhat ameliorated by public education and stricter laws. Additional measures are nevertheless needed. People still drive after drinking, and when they do the probability is greatly accident involving death or serious injury.

David: I think you exaggerate the dangers of driving while drunk. Actually, a driver who is in an automobile accident is slightly less likely if drunk than if sober.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
4.

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

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Flaw4% picked this

    He contradicts

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

  2. Wrong Flaw4% picked this

    He assumes what he is seeking

    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.

  3. Does Give Evidence14% picked this

    He contradicts Marianna’s conclusion without giving any evidence for his point

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

  4. Correct75% picked this

    He argues against a point that is not one that Marianna

    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.

  5. Wrong Flaw3% picked this

    He directs his criticism against the person making the argument rather than directing it against

    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.

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