LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 09

June 2011

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

Target time: 1:16

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
PT133 S2 Q09	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 5% 160 B 15% 160 C 0% 152 D 67% 167 E 12% 162	146 157 168	+Harder	147.633 +SubsectionMedium

Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The letter concludes that the evidence supports increasing speed limits, even though areas with lower speed limits also have lower vehicle fatality rates. This is based on the observation that fatality rates are rising in areas with lower speed limits.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The letter’s argument is flawed because it draws a conclusion about the safety of areas with low speed limits relative to other areas, while only considering evidence about areas with low speed limits. In other words, the argument fails to consider whether the same increase in fatality rates is happening in areas with higher speed limits.

bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizing

The argument does base its conclusion on findings from the article which it criticizes, but this isn’t a flaw, because the argument seeks to prove that the article misinterpreted the evidence. So, it actually has to show that the same evidence leads to a different conclusion.

fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalities

Whether high-speed accidents “often” cause fatalities isn’t relevant to the argument. The argument is specifically about the fatality rates in low-speed-limit versus high-speed-limit areas, and this possibility wouldn’t help to make that determination.

fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive faster

Whether or not people want to drive faster is irrelevant to the argument, because it doesn’t impact the issue of whether raising speed limits would be safer.

fails to consider the possibility that the vehicle-related fatality rates in other areas are also rising

The argument draws a conclusion that a higher speed limit is safer based only on evidence about rising fatality rates in low-speed-limit areas. Without knowing whether fatality rates are also rising in high-speed-limit areas, this just isn’t enough to support the conclusion.

does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpoint

The argument does present claims as evidence against the opposing viewpoint: specifically, the increasing fatality rate in low-speed-limit areas.

LSAT 133 – Section 2 – Question 09

LSAT 133 - Section 2 - Question 09

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 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel