Logical Reasoning

PT8 · S1 · Q12 Light utility trucks have become

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

Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks’ rugged appearance.

Conclusion (therefore)

If involved in a high-impact accident, a driver of a light utility truck is more likely to be injured than a driver of a car subject to safety standards.

Evidence

Light utility trucks are exempt from the government's car-safety standards for minimum roof strength and impact resistance.

Evaluate

There is a pretty straightforward missing link connecting the evidence and the conclusion: .

If we were trying to argue the anti-conclusion, what objections could we come up with? Given that light trucks are exempt from the safety standards, how can we argue you're not more likely to get injured in an accident?

We could say that even though they're exempt, they still aim for the same safety standards (maybe they want to be ready for if the govt ever yanks that exemption). Or maybe trucks really are worse when it comes to roof strength and impact resistance but there are other differences between trucks and cars that would help protect the truck's occupants.

Goal

Look for an answer that connects the absence of safety standards for light utility trucks to an increased likelihood of injury. It might address the assumption that these trucks do not meet the same safety standards as the cars and that this difference is significant enough to affect injury likelihood.

12.

The argument depends on the assumption that

the government has established safety
Opposite (if anything)
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% picked this
people who buy automobiles solely
Irrelevant Relationship
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% picked this
light utility trucks are more
Irrelevant Quality
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?"
14% picked this
the trucks’ rugged appearance is
Irrelevant Quality
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.
1% picked this
Correct
light utility trucks are less
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.
82% 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