Okay, ignore this comment. It's definitely not the point. But wouldn't the speed limit on a British highway have decreased from 113 km/h to 80 km/h? lol
The stimulus: The speed limit used to be 70 MPH, but we reduced it to 50 MPH. After the speed limit was reduced, there was less traffic.
You would think that lowering the speed limit would cause more traffic, right? People travelling slower would overall make traffic slower. But for some reason, we observed the opposite -- traffic decreased.
Now our job is to figure out why. Why might traffic decrease even though people are driving slower. Answer C provides a potential explanation. When the speed limit was 70 MPH (before the change), people were flying down the freeway and driving like maniacs, causing accidents. These accidents caused long delays that jammed up traffic. I'm sure you've experienced it. An accident can add so much time onto traffic. But now that the speed limit is 50 MPH, people are driving slower (assumedly more carefully) and thus accidents are reduced. So we reduce the risk of having these accidents that cause lengthy delays and boom, traffic is reduced.
The accident poses as an explanation for the reduced traffic, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the stimulus
@ameliaviscay1 well this is an RRE question, not most strongly supported. So it is the answer's job to explain what's happening. The answer here poses an explanation, and even itself outright explains how its related, by saying that lengthy delays (increased travel time) is caused by this. Remember, all RRE questions should be treated as true.
@kamalish73232 This is an RRE question so we have to take the answer choices as true ("Which of the following, if true,"). We just have to chose the answer that best explains what is happening in the stimulus. The answer choice does not have to contain the same information in the stimulus, it just has to explain it.
is there a mistake in one of the explanations? for (A), last sentence says: But does (A) tell us why the new rush-hour speed is faster than the old one? No, it doesn’t explain the phenomenon at all.
Should it say "why the new rush-hour speed is slower than the old one"?
idk maybe my brain is a little squashed and i'm not processing the words right, but re-read the stim a few times to be sure
I think what A is trying to get you to do is make that assumption about the phenomenon. But in reality, we have no good reason to be comparing the traffic time of rush hour to the traffic time of other times during the day. Its completely irrelevant and thats why its wrong.
a workaround is if you click on the "Answers" button and then click on Explanation, it will open a new tab with the explanation video. This allows you to watch on higher speed, and it also will have bookmarks on the video's progress bar for each answer choice!
I would shift your perspective for these questions, you aren't being doubtful of these answers as you were in previous question types (if I'm remembering correctly). You are trying to find the best fit and the causal relationship here links and does resolve the question. Hope that reminder helps, it's the way I'm approaching these questions types!
Yes, but my reasoning was that even if the number of people who drive did not increased, either way the driving time would've roughly stayed the same and the stimulus said that it decreased!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
24 comments
Okay, ignore this comment. It's definitely not the point. But wouldn't the speed limit on a British highway have decreased from 113 km/h to 80 km/h? lol
Me not understanding that decreased by 15% and increase by 15% are different things...... no wonder I couldn't make sense of this question
Im confused, why are we talking about accidents when the passage does not tell us anything about that? Can someone explain the stimulus?
The stimulus: The speed limit used to be 70 MPH, but we reduced it to 50 MPH. After the speed limit was reduced, there was less traffic.
You would think that lowering the speed limit would cause more traffic, right? People travelling slower would overall make traffic slower. But for some reason, we observed the opposite -- traffic decreased.
Now our job is to figure out why. Why might traffic decrease even though people are driving slower. Answer C provides a potential explanation. When the speed limit was 70 MPH (before the change), people were flying down the freeway and driving like maniacs, causing accidents. These accidents caused long delays that jammed up traffic. I'm sure you've experienced it. An accident can add so much time onto traffic. But now that the speed limit is 50 MPH, people are driving slower (assumedly more carefully) and thus accidents are reduced. So we reduce the risk of having these accidents that cause lengthy delays and boom, traffic is reduced.
The accident poses as an explanation for the reduced traffic, it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the stimulus
@ameliaviscay1 well this is an RRE question, not most strongly supported. So it is the answer's job to explain what's happening. The answer here poses an explanation, and even itself outright explains how its related, by saying that lengthy delays (increased travel time) is caused by this. Remember, all RRE questions should be treated as true.
@kamalish73232 This is an RRE question so we have to take the answer choices as true ("Which of the following, if true,"). We just have to chose the answer that best explains what is happening in the stimulus. The answer choice does not have to contain the same information in the stimulus, it just has to explain it.
is there a mistake in one of the explanations? for (A), last sentence says: But does (A) tell us why the new rush-hour speed is faster than the old one? No, it doesn’t explain the phenomenon at all.
Should it say "why the new rush-hour speed is slower than the old one"?
idk maybe my brain is a little squashed and i'm not processing the words right, but re-read the stim a few times to be sure
I think what A is trying to get you to do is make that assumption about the phenomenon. But in reality, we have no good reason to be comparing the traffic time of rush hour to the traffic time of other times during the day. Its completely irrelevant and thats why its wrong.
I hated all of these answers.
Truly trying to pick out the most clean answer from a dumpster moment
#feedback --- For some reason there is no option to watch this video on high speed, as is usually available. Perhaps it's just me.
That happens to me with random videos as well, may just be a glitch.
Sometimes it glitches, usually refreshing brings that menu back up for me.
a workaround is if you click on the "Answers" button and then click on Explanation, it will open a new tab with the explanation video. This allows you to watch on higher speed, and it also will have bookmarks on the video's progress bar for each answer choice!
This question has me twisted on how we assume that accidents are the cause of high-speed limits. other ACs did not make sense either.
he was making a causal chain, not a conditional chain
I would shift your perspective for these questions, you aren't being doubtful of these answers as you were in previous question types (if I'm remembering correctly). You are trying to find the best fit and the causal relationship here links and does resolve the question. Hope that reminder helps, it's the way I'm approaching these questions types!
If youve ever driven in rush hour, youd know the difference" --
me: They take a different route?
Him: Driving slower means less accidents (:
Me: assumption
E is a crime.
Yes, but my reasoning was that even if the number of people who drive did not increased, either way the driving time would've roughly stayed the same and the stimulus said that it decreased!
Does anyone know where I can learn more about casual chains? I did not see a link in the "lessons to review" part. #feedback
Learn-->Syllabus-->Foundations-->Causal Logic. I think it's this.
I might be overthinking this. I like c but when you're saying less mph→ less → less. aren't you shifting the arrow ←?
nope! e.g. When I eat a mid-morning snack, I eat less for lunch. The logic can still propagate forward -- mid-morning-snack -> less-for-lunch