LSAT 125 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 125 - Section 4 - Question 15

June 2008

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

Target time: 1:22

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
PT125 S4 Q15
+LR
Argument part +AP
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
33%
159
B
56%
165
C
2%
155
D
6%
156
E
4%
158
150
160
170
 +Hardest 145.982 +SubsectionMedium

Singletary: We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object to the city’s new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets. If the city wanted to become a safer place for cyclists, it would not require helmets. Instead, it would construct more bicycle lanes and educate drivers about bicycle safety. Thus, passage of the ordinance reveals that the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than with bicyclists’ actual safety.

Summarize Argument
Singletary says the ordinance requiring helmets is more concerned with the appearance of bicycle safety than actual safety. Why? If they were actually concerned about safety they would make more bicycle lanes and educate drivers, not mandate helmets.

Identify Argument Part
This is an action Singletary says the city would do if it actually cared about safety more than appearing to be safe. Since the city didn’t do it, they don’t actually care more.

A
It is cited as evidence for the claim that the city misunderstands the steps necessary for ensuring bicyclists’ safety.
The argument does not claim the city misunderstands, it claims the city is not concerned with actual safety.
B
It is used as partial support for a claim about the motivation of the city.
This claim acts as partial support because it shows what the city would do, but didn’t, if it actually cared about safety.
C
It is offered as evidence of the total ineffectiveness of the helmet ordinance.
Singletary does not claim the helmet measure is ineffective. He claims that it shows the city doesn’t truly care about safety, effective or not.
D
It is offered as an example of further measures the city will take to ensure bicyclists’ safety.
There is no evidence that the city will implement this in the future. Singletary only presents it as something that would have happened if the city cared about safety.
E
It is presented as an illustration of the city’s overriding interest in its public image.
The conclusion is not that the city has an overriding interest in its public image. The conclusion is that the city prioritized the appearance of safety over actual safety. While this may be true, it is an inaccurate depiction of what the statement is supporting.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 125 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply