LSAT 155 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 155 - Section 1 - Question 07

November 2019

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:10

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
PT155 S1 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Strengthen +Streng
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
7%
154
B
3%
151
C
89%
161
D
1%
145
E
1%
148
121
133
146
 +Easiest 147.037 +SubsectionMedium

Transportation official: I reject the claim that the ruts in our city’s roads are caused by large trucks rather than studded snow tires. There are many places that have as much large truck traffic as we have here and also have a comparable amount of snowfall, and only those few places that allow studded snow tires have ruts in their roads similar to ours. Clearly, studded snow tires are to blame.

Summarize Argument

The transportation official concludes that studded snow tires, rather than large trucks, cause the ruts in the city’s roads. She supports this by saying that many other places have just as much large truck traffic and snowfall as her city, but only those that allow studded snow tires have similar ruts in their roads.

Notable Assumptions

The transportation official assumes that other factors, such as the presence of large trucks, are not also contributing to the ruts. She blames only studded snow tires without considering that they might be causing the ruts in conjunction with some other factor.

A
Large trucks are not allowed to have studded snow tires in many areas.

We don’t know if “many areas” includes the transportation official’s city or any of the other cities that she references. Because of this, (A) is too vague to strengthen her conclusion.

B
The number of ruts in the roads of the transportation official’s city has declined recently as the amount of large truck traffic has diminished.

This weakens the argument by pointing out another factor that could be contributing to the ruts in the roads. If the ruts decrease as large truck traffic decreases, it’s more likely that large trucks also contributes to the ruts in the roads.

C
Most of the places that allow studded snow tires but have negligible large truck traffic have roads full of ruts similar to those in the transportation official’s city.

This strengthens the argument by eliminating another possible cause of the ruts. If places with studded snow tires but negligible large truck traffic also have similar ruts in the roads, then the large truck traffic is likely not contributing to the ruts.

D
Some cities with even more truck traffic than in the transportation official’s city also have ruts in their roads.

The transportation official’s argument blames studded snow tires for the ruts, and we don’t know whether the cities mentioned in (D) also have studded snow tires. Thus, (D) is irrelevant.

E
Most places that have little snowfall do not allow the use of studded snow tires.

Irrelevant— the transportation official’s argument only addresses those places that do allow the use of studded snow tires and the effects of those tires on the roads.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 155 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply