Light utility trucks have become

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

TopicsNecessary Assumption

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

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

Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks’ rugged appearance. Yet although these trucks are tough-looking, they are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards that dictate minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, if involved in a serious high-impact accident, a driver of a driver of a car that is subject to these government standards.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

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

The question

12.

The argument depends on the assumption

Answer choices

Opposite (if anything)3% picked this
the government has established safety standards for the construction of light
If trucks had their own safety standards to live up to, then it would sound less damaging that they're exempt from the car safety standards. This would hurt the author's ability to argue that the truck occupants are more likely to be injured, so she's not assuming it.
3%
Irrelevant Relationship1% picked this
people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people
The author doesn't need there to be any relationship between anyone who buys a vehicle for its appearance and reckless driving. The comment about the appearance was not part of the argument's support, and the idea of reckless driving is completely out of scope.
1%
Irrelevant Quality13% picked this
light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents
The frequency of getting into accidents is irrelevant. Our conclusion is only addressing, "WHEN you get into an accident, are you more likely to get injured in a light truck or in a car that followed safety standards?"
13%
Irrelevant Quality0% picked this
the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are
The rugged appearance versus engine power is totally outside the ideas in the evidence and the conclusion, which are about whether an exemption from safety standards impacts injury likelihood.
0%
Correct83% picked this
light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are
Why this is right
This answer spells out an Assumed Difference. The author is definitely thinking that since these trucks are exempt from the standards, they're less likely to meet the standards, compared to cars that aren't exempt. If we negated this and said, "these trucks are just as likely to meet the safety standards as cars are", that would blow up the author's argument.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
83%

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