LSAT 136 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 136 - Section 2 - Question 01

June 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:49

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
PT136 S2 Q01
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
0%
146
B
3%
157
C
1%
155
D
0%
146
E
95%
164
125
134
144
 +Easiest 146.855 +SubsectionMedium

Mayor: There has been a long debate in city council about how to accommodate projected increases in automobile traffic. Today, our choice is clear: either we adopt my plan to build a new expressway, or we do nothing. Doing nothing is not a viable option because our existing system of roads would be in gridlock within ten years given even a conservative estimate of future traffic levels. City council should therefore adopt my plan.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the city council should adopt the mayor’s plan. This is based on the assertion that there are only two options: either the council adopts the mayor’s plan, or they do nothing. And, doing nothing isn’t a viable option.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author presents a false dichotomy between adopting the mayor’s plan and doing nothing. Why can’t the city council do something else besides the mayor’s plan and nothing? Maybe there’s a different strategy that could be used. The author doesn’t provide any reason to think the city council’s options are limited to the two described.

A
It bases a projection only on conservative estimates rather than considering a wider range of estimates.
There’s nothing flawed about basing a projection only on conservative estimates. Conservative estimates are less extreme; if less conservative estimates were used, we have no reason to think that gridlock wouldn’t occur as quickly.
B
It takes for granted that the options it considers are mutually exclusive.
The two options are mutually exclusive — doing nothing, by definition, cannot happen at the same time as adopting the mayor’s plan. So the author isn’t assuming the options are mutually exclusive.
C
It fails to consider the possibility that the rate of increase in traffic will start to diminish after ten years.
The author never made any predictions about what occurs after ten years. So this possibility isn’t something that undermines the author’s argument.
D
It fails to address the issue of the cost of traffic gridlock to the city’s economy.
The argument concerns how to accommodate projected increases in automobile traffic. The author never cited to economic concerns or reached a conclusion about economic concerns. So the failure to address the cost of traffic gridlock is irrelevant.
E
It presents a choice that is limited to two options, without giving reasons for not considering any other options.
The author presents only two choices — adopting the mayor’s plan or doing nothing. But there was no reason given for why these are the only two options. This presents a false dichotomy.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply