LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 01

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 01

June 2011

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:03

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 S3 Q01
+LR
Argument part +AP
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
156
B
1%
153
C
2%
156
D
1%
154
E
94%
163
126
136
145
 +Easier 147.69 +SubsectionMedium

Commentator: In last week’s wreck involving one of Acme Engines’ older locomotives, the engineer lost control of the train when his knee accidentally struck a fuel shut-down switch. Acme claims it is not liable because it never realized that the knee-level switches were a safety hazard. When asked why it relocated knee-level switches in its newer locomotives, Acme said engineers had complained that they were simply inconvenient. However, it is unlikely that Acme would have spent the $500,000 it took to relocate switches in the newer locomotives merely because of inconvenience. Thus, Acme Engines should be held liable for last week’s wreck.

Summarize Argument
The commentator concludes that Acme Engines is liable for the recent wreck. Despite what the company says, Acme Engines must’ve known that knee-height switches were a safety hazard, given that they spent $500,000 to relocate the switches in newer locomotives.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is a premise of the argument. It indicates that Acme Engines knew the switches were a safety hazard.

A
proof that the engineer is not at all responsible for the train wreck
The commentator doesn’t claim that the engineer is not at all responsible for the train wreck. We know is that Acme Engines should be held liable, though we don’t know to what extent.
B
a reason for believing that the wreck would have occurred even if Acme Engines had remodeled their older locomotives
We don’t know what would’ve happened if Acme Engines had remodeled their older locomotives. The fact they spent $500,000 remodeling the newer ones simply points to the fact Acme knew the knee-height switches were a safety hazard.
C
an explanation of why the train wreck occurred
The commentator tells us that the wreck happened when a knee-heigh switch was accidentally struck. The fact that Acme Engines spent $500,000 remodeling newer locomotives doesn’t explain the wreck in any further detail.
D
evidence that knee-level switches are not in fact hazardous
If anything, Acme Engines spending $500,000 to remodel new locomotives suggests that knee-height switches might be hazardous. It’s certainly what the commentator concludes, so this seems to contradict the argument.
E
an indication that Acme Engines had been aware of the potential dangers of knee-level switches before the wreck occurred
Since the commentator states Acme Engines wouldn’t have spent $500,000 on a mere inconvenience, it’s implied that $500,000 was spent for a different reason—safety concerns. To address these, Acme would’ve had to have known the hazard the switches posed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply