LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 03

June 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:04

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
PT106 S2 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Sampling +Smpl
A
1%
154
B
93%
165
C
0%
143
D
3%
159
E
4%
153
129
138
148
 +Easier 147.566 +SubsectionMedium

Opponents of allowing triple-trailer trucks to use the national highway system are wrong in claiming that these trucks are more dangerous than other commercial vehicles. In the western part of the country, in areas where triple-trailers are now permitted on some highways, for these vehicles the rate of road accident fatalities per mile of travel is lower than the national rate for other types of commercial vehicles. Clearly, triple-trailers are safer than other commercial vehicles.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author poses the hypothesis that triple-trailer trucks, which are not currently allowed on national highways, are actually safer than other commercial vehicles. This hypothesis is based on an observation from the western part of the country, where triple-trailers are allowed on highways. In those areas, the traffic fatality rate for triple-trailers is lower than the national traffic fatality rates for other commercial vehicles.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the triple-trailer fatality rate from the West would be equivalent to the rate across the country as a whole. This is shown by comparing triple-trailer rates from only one area to other commercial vehicles’ national rates.
The author also assumes that vehicles’ safety is accurately represented by those vehicles’ traffic fatality rates alone, and not, for example, injury rates.

A
It takes two smaller semitrailers to haul as much weight as a single triple-trailer can.
This does not weaken the argument. The amount of cargo that different types of vehicles can haul has no bearing on how we assess the safety of those vehicles. This claim is just irrelevant to the argument.
B
Highways in the sparsely populated West are much less heavily traveled and consequently are far safer than highways in the national system as a whole.
This weakens the argument by undermining the author’s comparison of triple-trailer fatality rates from the West against other vehicles’ national rates. This claim undermines the conclusion that triple-trailers are overall safer—instead, they’re just being driven in safer areas.
C
Opponents of the triple-trailers also once opposed the shorter twin-trailers, which are now common on the nation’s highways.
This does not weaken the argument. Whatever else the opponents have ever opposed is totally irrelevant to how safe triple-trailers are. Even if we knew how safe twin-trailers are, which we don’t, this wouldn’t do anything to the argument.
D
In areas where the triple-trailers are permitted, drivers need a special license to operate them.
This does not weaken the argument. If anything, this could strengthen by providing a mechanism for triple-trailers’ safety. We don’t know whether other commercial vehicle drivers also need special licenses, though, so it’s hard to compare. Either way, no weakening here!
E
For triple-trailers the rate of road accident fatalities per mile of travel was higher last year than in the two previous years.
This does not weaken the argument. How triple-trailer fatality rates have changed over the last few years tells us nothing without more information. How big was the change? Do we know what caused it? We don’t know. As it is, this is just irrelevant to the argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply