Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q9 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

Start practicing free

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 (Therefore)

If people would walk whenever its' feasible, pollution will be greatly reduced.

Evidence

If someone chooses to walk rather than drive, there will be one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air.

Evaluate

Both the premise and the conclusion are conditional, but the conversation somehow doesn't seem like it's meant for conditional "missing link" thinking. The author is making a prediction, and predictions are inherently Comparisons: we're comparing our current world to this hypothetical future world.

In this hypothetical world, what sort of comparisons is the author assuming?

She's thinking that people will walk more than they used to and drive less than they used to (overall). And she thinks the emissions caused by "walking, not driving" will be lower than the emissions that would have resulted from "driving".

How could we object to this argument? Can we think of some storyline where we're in this hypothetical world where people walk whenever it's feasible, but somehow pollution has not been greatly reduced?

Will people be creating pollution that wouldn't have existed otherwise by walking?

- maybe they start smoking more, and the smoke pollutes - maybe the walking makes them fart more, and that methane is a greenhouse gas (not a likely LSAT answer) - maybe they use electrical devices more to listen to podcasts, and the pollution involved in increased demand for those products is worse than the pollution that would be caused by driving

Importantly, though, because the prediction is "pollution will be significantly reduced", not just "pollution will be reduced", we don't have to come up with a story where people's emissions from walking are worse than those from driving.

Even if the new emission are just somewhat significant, they could offset a lot of the emissions savings the author thinks we're getting by not driving. That would still allow us to argue that the net effect of walking whenever feasible has not been a significant reduction.

Goal

Tough to know what to predict. Look for something that matches something the author is clearly thinking, probably relating to a Comparison between our current world and the hypothetical world.

9.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

  1. Cutting down on pollution can

    Out of Scope: variety of ways

    This is a great example of an answer that seems appealing because obviously it's a true statement in the world. But did this author discuss a variety of ways to reduce pollution? No, he only discussed walking rather than driving as one way. If we negated this answer and said, "There aren't a variety of ways to cut down on pollution. Walking instead of driving is the only way", that would not weaken the argument.

    1% picked this

  2. Taking public transportation rather than

    Out of Scope: public transportation

    Again, this has appeal because it's true in the real world. But the author never discussed public transportation at all. This answer is trying to bait people into using their own value system to hear something like, "If this dude is suggesting walking rather than driving, then he must be thinking of situations where you couldn't take public transportation, because obviously public transportation is the better option, which offers a good compromise of environmental efficiency and not making you walk 5 miles to work." If we negated this answer, we'd get, "taking public transportation is always feasible". That's not an objection. The author isn't saying "we should walk instead of driving", which would allow us to argue "isn't public transportation, which is always feasible, a better option?" The author is just descriptively predicting something that would be true in an alternate universe. "IF we lived in a world where people walked whenever feasible, that would be a world where pollution is greatly reduced". I could defend a conclusion, "IF we had human residential colonies on Mars, there would be way less structural racism in those communities". That doesn't mean I think we should have human colonies on Mars.

    5% picked this

  3. Walking is the only feasible

    Too Strong: the only

    This is the classic trap answer move of trying to get students to think that "the only [thing mentioned]" is therefore "the only [thing]". The only alternative to driving mentioned was walking, but that doesn't mean the author thinks that walking is the only alternative. When I say, "Black lives matter", the only lives that I mentioned are black ones, but that doesn't mean I think that only black lives matter.

    18% picked this

  4. There are people who never

    Out of Scope: never drive

    The author's argument is about switching from a current world in which people are driving instead of walking, into a hypothetical world, where people are walking instead of driving more often (when feasible). People who never drive are unaffected by this switch, so they are beyond the scope of the argument, unless this hypothetical world turned them into drivers. This could be a correct answer: "People who currently never drive would not be encouraged to start driving if people who currently drive switch to walking more."

    2% picked this

  5. Correct

    People sometimes drive when it

    Why this is right

    This answer is confusing but the weak language (sometimes) is very lovable on Necessary Assumption. When we negate it, it's saying "people currently never drive if it's feasible to walk". That would be a huge objection! Why? If we were transported to the author's hypothetical world, where people never drive when it's feasible for them to walk, then we would be in .... the .. exact .. same world? There would apparently be no reduction in pollution, for the hypothetical world the conclusion is talking about. After all, we already live in that world. As an analogy, say that our conclusion were saying, "If Jimmy follows Patrick's LSAT Method, his score will greatly increase". This would be assuming that "Jimmy's score is not already a 180". In order for Patrick's Method to make an improvement, there has to be room for improvement. In order for this policy of "walk whenever feasible" to make a difference, there has to be room for improvement. It has to be the case that people have not already perfect this part of their lives. It has to be true that they currently sometimes drive when it's feasible for them to walk instead.

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

    73% 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