LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 17

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 17

June 2002

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

Target time: 1:15

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 This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve This gives you an idea of how this question is “curved”— in other words, what level of scorer is likely to get this question right. It shows a model of scaled LSAT score vs probability of getting the question correct. It is based on student test results for each question. The gray bar extends from the score for a 25% chance, to the score for a 75% chance of getting the question correct. The black line in the middle is the score for a 50% chance of getting the question correct. The percentage at the right is the expected chance of someone with the same score as you on that PrepTest getting that question correct	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT113 S4 Q17	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 3% 155 B 23% 159 C 27% 157 D 12% 154 E 34% 163	156 167 178	+Hardest	145.144 +SubsectionEasier

Showing 1 to 1 of 1 entries

First Previous1Next Last

J.Y.’s explanation

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

A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author concludes that a speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities. This is based on the fact that a year ago, the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since that reduction, there have been fewer highway deaths than there were in the previous year.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author assumes that the reduction in highway speed limit caused the decrease in highway fatalities. This overlooks the possibility that there are other explanations for the decrease in highway fatalities in the year following the speed limit reduction.

highway traffic has not increased over the past year

The negation of (A) doesn’t undermine the argument. If traffic has increased over the past year, that might strengthen the argument, because we’d expect to see more fatalities. Since the negation doesn’t hurt the argument, the author doesn’t have to assume (A).

the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit

The author doesn’t have to assume that most drivers obeyed the speed limit, because a speed limit reduction can still affect driving behavior even if most people don’t follow the speed limit. For example, the new limit can cause people to drive slower.

there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents

The author’s conclusion concerns the number of highway deaths. This doesn’t commit the author to any belief about the number of accidents, which is different from the number of deaths.

the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old

If anything, the author assumes that the new speed limit was not more strictly enforced. More strict enforcement could have been an alternate explanation for the decline in fatalities. So the author assumes this didn’t happen, not that it did happen.

the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high

This must be assumed because if the number of fatalities the year before the new limit was abnormally high, then that suggests the decrease in fatalities after the speed limit might just be a coincidence. It might be a return to the normal fatality rate.

LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 17

Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 17

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel