Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q10 If a person chooses to walk

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

If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise.

Conclusion

If people walked whenever feasible, pollution would be greatly reduced.

Evidence

When someone chooses to walk rather than drive, there's one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise.

Evaluate

This argument is based on a Comparison between the "walk whenever possible world" and the actual world.

We know one difference: When people walk instead of driving, there's one less vehicle emitting pollution than otherwise, but what else might be different (that would affect pollution)?

Does someone who chooses to walk instead of drive start doing something new that adds to pollution? (maybe because they're walking they choose to smoke, and that leads to pollution .... maybe they have to buy walking shoes more frequently, and the production of rubber soles leads to pollution)

These are pretty unlikely objections, but any answer that rule out the idea that walking created new forms of pollution would be useful.

The other vulnerability of the argument is that the author thinks the difference between the walk-when-possible world and the actual world is that in the former, pollution will be greatly reduced.

We might freely admit that pollution will be lessened by walking instead of driving, but disagree that it will be a great / significant reduction.

So if an answer helped to convince us that this could lead to GREAT reductions in pollution, that would also work.

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out some idea that walking instead of driving creates a new form of pollution, or for an answer making it seem like car pollution is a BIG contributor to pollution or that people are FREQUENTLY driving instead of walking, so that in a walk-when-possible world there would be a big difference in pollution.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

If automobile passengers who never
Weakens, if anything
The author was envisioning that in the walk-when-possible world, there would be much fewer vehicles on the road, hence less emissions, hence less pollution. This answer is stressing that for the people who are riding, not driving, their decision to walk instead doesn't really have any impact on pollution, which undercuts the author's conclusion.
8% picked this
Correct
Nonmoving running vehicles, on average,
Why this is right
This suggests another change that would take place in the walk-whenever-possible world that would help to reduce pollution. In a world where people walk whenever possible, there will be fewer cars on the road and thus less congestion on the roads. This answer says that less congestion will also mean less pollution from nonmoving vehicles that are just idling. It still reinforces what we already know -- the reduction in pollution is supposed to come from their being fewer vehicles emitting pollution. But this answer is sort of saying, "You won't just get reduced pollution from the vehicles that are no longer on the road; you'll also get reduced pollution from the vehicles that are still on the road, since their car journeys will now be less congested and thus less polluting."
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
50% picked this
Since different vehicles can pollute
No Impact
This is incredibly weak, because it's just saying that it's possible for something to happen. It doesn't give us any indication that thing will happen. It's also telling us something we already know from common sense: vehicles vary in terms of how much pollution they emit. Taking a Prius off the road has less effect on pollution than taking a Range Rover off the road. If this answer said, "The people who could walk instead of driving tend to drive vehicles that emit more pollution than the average vehicle", that would strengthen the argument.
32% picked this
On average, buses pollute more
Out of Scope: buses
The evidence is only about walking rather than driving, not walking rather than taking some other mode of transportation. When the author imagines the difference between the actual world and the walk-when-possible world, he's only thinking about how fewer drivers would change things. It's not clear whether a decision to ride a bus vs. walk would make much difference on pollution, since buses tend to drive their routes regardless of how many passengers are on board.
7% picked this
Those who previously rode as
Weakens
This is suggesting that something else would change in the "walk-when-possible" world: people who used to be riders would now become drivers. If I decide to walk rather than drive, but then one of my normal commuting passengers is like, "Oh, for realz? Well, then I guess I'll start driving", then we haven't actually resulted in one less vehicle on the road emitting pollution.
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