#8 - Satellite navigation systems (satnavs) for cars, in

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[altheaD]

I'm having a hard time with how to identify E as the correct answer, although on concept level, I see how that makes sense

I was looking for an answer choice that touches on saving gas and/or promoting safety. Is "less likely to change course" implying that changing course will NOT save gas and therefore this can be interpreted as saving gas? The second clause "make other riskey maneuvers" I think is supposed to imply that therefore safety is promoted...which does make sense.

But I feel like it's a total stretch that the first clause, the way it's worded is implying saving fuel --I mean changing course can lead one to get lost but you can't assume that is the case... may be there was a sign that showed parallel bypass, for example.

Thanks for any tip...

[Dave Killoran]

I'm having a hard time with how to identify E as the correct answer, although on concept level, I see how that makes sense

I was looking for an answer choice that touches on saving gas and/or promoting safety. Is "less likely to change course" implying that changing course will NOT save gas and therefore this can be interpreted as saving gas? The second clause "make other riskey maneuvers" I think is supposed to imply that therefore safety is promoted...which does make sense.

But I feel like it's a total stretch that the first clause, the way it's worded is implying saving fuel --I mean changing course can lead one to get lost but you can't assume that is the case... may be there was a sign that showed parallel bypass, for example.

Thanks for any tip...

Hi Althea,

Yes, you've got the right idea with (E)! It is indeed trying to support the safety aspect of satnavs. With the first clause you mention, note the word they tacked on to the end: "suddenly." The whole phrase— "less likely to change course suddenly"— is meant to show that drivers are safer because they aren't making quick and abrupt course changes. The second part reinforces that because it mentions "make other risky maneuvers," and the "other" I italicized was used to show that the sudden course changes were considered risky. the second part of course adds on as well to the safety idea because it eliminates additional risky moves as well.

I think you had the exact right idea in looking to support gas or safety, and had you locked in on that "suddenly" this one would have made sense the first time through.

Thanks!

[altheaD]

OMG Dave that makes PERFECT sense! Thank you.
I'm starting to realize that every single word literally, is put in there for a reason. I knew it but then I didn't, I see... so this was a really good lesson!

[ronibass]

I was stuck between A and E. I ended up choosing E, but it was luck. Why would A be wrong? The argument is the first sentence, correct? The stimulus mentions novel destinations and since answer choice A addressed that people who go to novel destinations are more likely to use satnavs that this would strengthen the argument. Where did I go wrong with my reasoning?

[Brook Miscoski]

ronibass,

The conclusion is the first sentence--satnavs increase fuel efficiency and safety. The stimulus provides evidence for each contention, but the evidence is not conclusive (for example, the satnav path could be less fuel efficient because of speed or speed changes, and the satnav directions could result in distraction). We are asked to strengthen the argument, and you correctly eliminated everything but (A) and (E) and then had to guess.

Answer choice (A) can be attacked on various grounds. I think the best attack is that it just differentiates between two groups of people rather than giving you any additional evidence about fuel efficiency or safety. Remember, the evidence the stimulus gave is very inconclusive, so an answer choice that presumes the stimulus has established some improvement is going to be wrong. Another way of putting it is that (A) only amplifies the conclusion if you already believe the conclusion. It doesn't actually strengthen the argument for the conclusion itself.

Beyond that, we don't even know the extent of the difference between those groups of people or the ratio between the two groups. With (A), maybe 1 person out of 100 is using satnav slightly more regularly. What does that do? In the end, we have no idea whether (A) means that satnav is doing much of anything to improve safety or fuel efficiency.

Choice (E), however, directly addresses the inconclusiveness of the information provided by the stimulus by giving us a direct and concrete reason to believe that satnav use increases safety.

[Juanq42]

Hello!

I too was stuck between A and E.

Upon review, I realize that the negation technique would have helped me identify the answer choice that most strengthens the argument. But I would appreciate it if someone could review if I properly apply this strategy.

A - "People who are often required to drive to novel destinations are NOT more likely (equally likely or even less likely) to use satnav...."
I realize now that I selected answer choice A because it seemed to reinforce/defend the study that i thought the argument relied upon. Am I correct in my understanding that this answer choice doesn't fully strengthen in part because if this answer choice is weakened, claims that the study is based on a minority of people who travel to novel destinations? (i.e. so what? the study could have been based on this select group of drivers)

E- "Drivers who are given directions as needed are NOT less likely (equally likely or even more likely) to change course suddenly..."
Whereas answer E, if negated, would especially weaken the claim that using satnav promotes safety.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Juanq42,

Watch out here. This is a strengthen question, so we don't want to use the assumption negation technique. It could lead you astray! We aren't looking for something required here, just any answer choice that helps the argument.

Answer choice (A) doesn't really help the argument. It tells us what sort of people are more likely to use satnavs, but it doesn't address if/how it makes those people safer. Both groups in this answer choice are going to novel locations, but it doesn't address if one group is safer than the other.

Answer choice (E) helps our argument by linking the satnavs, which give directions, to safer driving. If people using satnavs are making fewer risky maneuvers, they are driving safer.

You need to make sure you use the correct test for the correct question type. It can be hard to learn them all, but using the wrong test is a dangerous way to go.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[LSATls]

I still do not see how (E) is correct. I understand that we are meant to strengthen the claim in the conclusion — that satnavs save fuel and promote safety — but I do not see how (E) provides enough information to strengthen that claim. Specifically, I’m concerned about the wording of (E), which says that “Drivers who are given directions as needed are less likely to change course suddenly or make other risky maneuvers.” However, all we know from the stimulus is that satnavs “announce directions as you drive.” There’s no indication of how or when these direction are announced, and for all we know satnavs could give directions so frequently that they actually become a distraction.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi LSATIs,

Great question, and really good close reading!

It's entirely possible from the stimulus that a satnav's "announcing directions as you drive" could be more frequent than a driver actually needs them. Nevertheless, the satnav would still be announcing directions at certain times that the driver needed them. So, answer choice E still covers the scenario in the stimulus and provides some additional support to the safety portion of the conclusion. In other words, the satnav is at least somewhat counteracting the potentially overly distracting announcement of directions you mentioned. I'd be a little more concerned about answer choice E if it read, "Drivers who are given directions only as needed..." If that were the language of answer choice E, then we'd have a much more difficult time connecting it to the stimulus.

Note that the above covers the "underinclusive" scenario as well: i.e., what if satnavs don't announce directions every single time drivers need them? We'd still be okay, because of the language of answer choice E, which doesn't get as restrictive as saying, "Drivers who are given directions every time those directions are needed..."

I hope this helps!

Jeremy