LSAT 113 – Section 3 – Question 24

LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 24

June 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:41

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT113 S3 Q24
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
158
B
1%
156
C
1%
150
D
2%
157
E
94%
167
138
145
153
 +Medium 146.265 +SubsectionMedium

Town councillor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town’s River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous than skateboarding in the park.

Summarize Argument
The town councillor concludes that the town shouldn’t ban skateboarding in the park. This is because children would instead skateboard in the street, which is more dangerous.

Notable Assumptions
The town councillor assumes that children generally would be in as much danger skateboarding in the street as in the park. If 50 kids were in danger skating in the park, and only 10 of those decided to go skateboard in the street once the ban was passed, then the danger posed to those 10 kids would have to be somehow greater than the danger posed to those 50 kids. Alternately, the town councillor may assume that either all or the vast majority of the kids would go skateboard in the street.

A
Ordinances that restrict the recreational activities of a town’s inhabitants should not be passed unless those activities pose a danger to participants.
Skateboarding in the park does pose a danger. Nevertheless, and contrary to this principle, the town councillor doesn’t believe the ban should be passed.
B
Since the town could be legally liable for accidents that occur on public property, town ordinances should restrict any unnecessarily dangerous activities in publicly owned areas.
Streets are also publicly owned. Besides, the town councillor doesn’t believe this ban should pass.
C
Since safety in a recreational activity depends on the level of skill of the participant in that activity, the regulation of children’s recreational activities should be left to the discretion of the children’s parents.
The town councillor doesn’t argue that the ban would interfere with parents’ rights. She argues that the ban would actually put children in more danger.
D
If recreational activities constitute a danger to the participants in those activities, then the town council should enact ordinances prohibiting those activities.
The town councillor doesn’t believe any such ordinance should be enacted.
E
Ordinances that seek to eliminate dangers should not be enacted if their enactment would lead to dangers that are greater than those they seek to eliminate.
The ban on skateboarding in the park would lead to the greater danger of skateboarding in the street. Thus, the ban shouldn’t be enacted.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply