Query failed: connection to 172.31.3.4:9312 failed (errno=111, msg=Connection refused). PTF97.S1.Q3 - McBride: The new proposed fuel-efficiency... - 7Sage Forum

PTF97.S1.Q3 - McBride: The new proposed fuel-efficiency...

sabahm1378sabahm1378 Live Member
edited June 2023 in Logical Reasoning 7 karma

I picked C for this question, and am having a hard time why A is the correct AC. The two parties clearly disagree on what's described in C.

Comments

  • AlexLSAT.AlexLSAT. Alum Member
    edited June 2023 802 karma

    For AC C, McBride clearly states that they agree with the answer choice, but Leggett never explicitly agrees or disagrees with this.

    All Leggett is saying is when there is a two car collision, there is a higher chance someone is injured in the collision if there is a full size car. Leggett does not go as far to say that the full size car people will get injured more or less, so AC C is wrong because of this.

    A is a lot more strong because it is stated explicitly within both people's arguments.

    We know that new fuel efficiency standards > discourage the production of full size cars. McBride clearly states that they should be opposed and hence NOT discourage the manufacturing of full size cars. Leggett says that they should support the fuel efficiency standards TO discourage the production of full size cars.

    Hope this helps.

  • beyondpossumbeyondpossum Live Member
    edited August 18 89 karma

    This question paired with the one in the op sucks in a very typical lsaty way. There's absolutely no change in perspective count on here. "Perspective", after all, is a very robust psychological notion regarding how someone looks at a some domain. Leggett does not shift our perspective, as it's not clear that this is something you can do in a sentence or two. Now, you could say that there is a much thinner sense of "perspective" at play here, where are the correct answer choice is just saying that Leggett is offering a different opinion or something--But then this would be trivial because absolutely every disagreeing interlocutor would be doing this, so the correct answer choice would correctly describe at each and every example of this question stem.

    What there is here is reconsidering the issue in light of new information. Newer lsats have shifted to this more accurate verbiage. But the wrong answers are super wrong here, so I guess this one is not a totally broken question.

Sign In or Register to comment.