PT113.S4.Q23

PrepTest 113 - Section 4 - Question 23

Hide analysis

Robert: Support Speed limits on residential streets in Crownsbury are routinely ignored by drivers. ██████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ███████ █████ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ██ ███████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ████████

███████ ████ ██ █ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █ █████ █████

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Robert points out that drivers in Crownsbury routinely ignore speed limits on residential streets, which is dangerous for pedestrians. Since the city doesn't have enough police officers to patrol each street, Robert suggests installing speed bumps, with signs warning that there are speed bumps, on residential streets.

Sheila rejects this suggestion on the grounds that, if drivers are going too fast, speed bumps can cause them to lose control of their vehicles.

Show answer
23.

Sheila's response depends on the ██████████████ ████

a

problems of the ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ██████
Incorrect. Sheila's argument doesn't make any comparisons between Crownsbury and other cities.
0%
b

Robert's proposal is ████████ ██ ███████ █ ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ███████
Incorrect. Sheila doesn't assume that Robert is trying to address any problem other than the one he mentions.
2%
c

with speed bumps ███ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ █████ █████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████ ██ █ ████ █████
Correct. If we negate (C) to say, "With speed bumps and warning signs in place, there would be no drivers who would not slow down to a safe speed" (i.e., all drivers would slow down to a safe speed), then Sheila's response becomes irrelevant. If all drivers slow down to a safe speed, then no drivers will be going fast enough to lose control if they hit a speed bump. So (C) is a necessary assumption for Sheila's argument: basically, Sheila's argument assumes that people would still be driving too fast even after Robert's proposal is implemented.
89%
d

most of the ██████ ███ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ ███████ █████
Incorrect. It seems like the "people affected by the problem" would be the pedestrians in these residential areas. Sheila doesn't make any assumptions about "most" of these people being harmed by the installation of speed bumps and warning signs. Her argument seems to be based on the possibility for some of these people to be harmed by installing these things, or for an additional group of people (drivers) to also be harmed.
8%
e

problems of the ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ███████ ██ ██████████
Incorrect. Both Sheila and Robert are only talking about a problem affecting residential streets. What happens (or doesn't happen) on nonresidential streets is irrelevant.
0%

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic
More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Free practice test All free LSAT resources

Confirm action

Are you sure?