LR Problem Set #2, Q 164

[smile22]

Could you please explain why answer C is correct? I incorrectly chose D. I note that this question has a causal element in it, where most accidents are CAUSED by violations of speed limits. Why is answer D incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

There is indeed a causal element to this stimulus, but in the end it turns out not to be relevant to our analysis since the conclusion isn't really causal.

Our author concludes, essentially, that making speeding impossible would eliminate most accidents. This is a pretty classic LSAT argument type, often coupled with either an assumption stem or a flaw stem. The author wants us to believe that if we do X, we will eliminate a problem (or almost eliminate it). The assumption he must be making is, in its simplest form, that the problem won't continue despite whatever our corrective efforts were.

Answer C is a defender assumption - it fights off a potential attack on the argument (that it may be necessary to speed in many cases to avoid an accident) (In other words, if we make speeding impossible there will still be a lot of accidents, albeit for a different reason than may now be the case).

Answer D is incorrect because it is not necessary to the argument. Try the Assumption Negation Technique on it - what if most drivers who speed do so intentionally? Does that hurt the argument? It does not - we still have a good case that preventing speeding will prevent accidents. The negated answer should destroy the argument, and D, negated, does nothing at all.

Good luck in your continued studies!

[smile22]

This question makes so much more sense now. Thank you.