Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S3 · Q7 Head injury is the most serious

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

Head injury is the most serious type of injury sustained in motorcycle accidents.

Conclusion (for the same reason / should)

Jurisdictions should require helmets for horseback riders, as a way to achieve cost reductions in medical care.

Evidence

Jurisdictions that introduced motorcycle helmet laws reduced head injuries and taxpayer costs. Horseback-riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head injuries than motorcycle accidents.

Evaluate

The author's argument moves from talking about motorcycles to making a similar recommendation about horseback riders based on the savings seen in jurisdictions with helmet laws for motorcyclists because of the helmet's protective effects.

The author must be Assuming Similarities, since she is basically arguing,

Goal

It's hard to know which similarity the answer might deal with, but the author essentially has to assume that this plan for horseback riders is similarly feasible, would engender similar cooperation, would not result in some different sense of backfire, and would target a similar source of spending.

7.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the author’s conclusion concerning helmets for horseback riders depends?

  1. Correct

    Medical care for victims of

    Why this is right

    One of the similarities the author is assuming is that there is money to be saved on horseback riding injuries. If those injuries are currently paid by rich people's private healthcare, then whether a horseback rider wears a helmet or not doesn't really affect the city. If medical care for horseback-riding injuries isn't a financial drain on taxpayers, then there'd be no taxpayer cost-saving benefit in passing helmet laws. And that weakens the author's argument, since she said we should enact these laws for the same reason (reducing cost to taxpayers).

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

    74% picked this

  2. The higher rate of serious

    Irrelevant Causality

    This is speculating the causal backstory to a premise. We know that horseback-riding accidents have a higher rate of serious head injury. It doesn't matter to the author's argument whether that's because of the difference in size between horses/motorcycles, or difference in size between horseback riders and motorcycle riders, or the type of terrain they each tend to be on, or any other reason. The logic is simply, "We saved money on motorcycle head injuries by requiring helmets. Horseback riding head injuries are even more common. So let's require helmets there too and save some money."

    1% picked this

  3. The medical costs associated with

    Irrelevant Comparison

    This has the classic "out of scope comparison" wording, other than [what we were talking about]. This argument was about head injuries and was never comparing them to other types of injuries. Trap answers love to act like "the only thing we talked about" is the only thing that has the traits we discussed / or the most important thing / or the most prevalent thing.

    8% picked this

  4. Most fatalities resulting from horseback-riding

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: most Out of Scope: fatalities (D) is about fatalities, not medical costs or financial implications. The argument is about cost reduction, not death prevention. And the word "most" is famously wrong on Necessary Assumption, 98% of the time. It rarely makes a crucial difference to an argument whether something would be true in 49% of cases vs. in 51% of cases.

    13% picked this

  5. When deciding whether to enact

    Opposite (if anything)

    The only concern mentioned in the argument that motivates the decision to enact these laws is cost reduction to taxpayers.

    4% 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