#12 - Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must be true. The correct answer choice is (A)

This is a fact set. The stimulus begins with the author indicating that drivers with a large number of
demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be
sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver re-education. This either/or relationship sets up the
following diagram:

J = sent to jail
DE = receive driver re-education
sub-D = drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a
serious driving-related offense

J D DE D
DED J D

The next sentence begins with the conditional indicator “only if,” and introduces the following
conditional relationship:

R = likely to be made more responsible drivers

DE R D

The final sentence denies that drivers with a large number of demerit points can be made into more
responsible drivers. This can be represented as follows:

RD

At this point the stimulus ends, but you should continue your analysis by linking the pieces of the
stimulus together. The denial of the “R” condition in the final sentence enacts a contrapositive:

RD DE

Linking this contrapositive to the either/or diagram in the first sentence yields the following chain:

RD DE J D

Hence, the pieces of the argument allow us to conclude that drivers with a large number of demerit
points who have also been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should go to jail. This is
restated almost exactly in answer choice (A).

Answer choice (A): As explained on the previous page, this is the correct answer.

Answer choice (B): Like the other three incorrect answers, this answer contains new information,
which in a Most Strongly Supported question is cause for suspicion. The stimulus does not discuss
the “best chance” for making drivers more responsible.

Answer choice (C): Similar to the reasoning behind eliminating answer choice (B), the stimulus does
not discuss whether driver re-education is a “harsh enough punishment” and thus we can eliminate
this answer choice.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not address drivers who have not committed a serious driving
offense, only those convicted of such an offense.

Answer choice (E): This is, in part, an Opposite Answer. According to the last two sentences of the
stimulus, drivers with a large number of demerit points should not receive driver re-education.

[deck1134]

Hi PowerScore,

I was confused on this question because while (A) is true in certain circumstances, most of the stimulus deals with being sent to re-education, which this doesn't address at all. This only provides that they should be sent to jail, neglecting the second option entirely. How is this the right answer in light of that?


Thanks.

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Deck,

This one has come up multiple times before, so I'm going to link you to the first two discussions I can find. This should get us going:

lsat/viewtopic.php?t=7126&p=18186

lsat/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=3216

Thanks!

[sim.LSAT]

Hi!

I was wondering why this conditional reasoning diagram is draw with subscripts. When I first diagrammed this, I thought it was a diagram with multiple necessary conditions.

For example.
If you are a driver with a large number of demerit points, then you must be sent to jail or receive driver re-education.
Driver with demerit points: DP
Jail:J
Driver re-education: DE

So, I diagrammed this as the following:
DP Jail or DE

Can someone please explain why this should be diagrammed as just an Either/Or statement and not as a diagram with multiple necessary conditions?

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Sim,

You can definitely do it the way you noted as well (with the multiple necessary conditions you noted in your diagram). The explanation sets it up as an either-or diagram, because it's easier to see the inference behind answer choice A with that diagram available to you.

This question provided a helpful additional learning point for me: that when you have an A B or C conditional statement, you have some extra possible conditional diagrams to lean on (should they prove useful to you). An "A" who is "not B" must be a C. And an "A" who is "not C" must be a B. If you find those extra conditionals useful in some way (as they were here, for seeing that a driver with a large number of demerit points who should not be forced to enter driver reeducation is a driver who should be sentenced to jail), then it's just an extra tool in your arsenal.

In short, your way isn't "wrong," it can just be supplemented to clarify (as is many times the case with the more complex notions tested on the LSAT).

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[sim.LSAT]

Thanks for the reply, Jeremy.

I can definitely see how diagramming the situation as an Either/Or statement made this an easier problem, especially when looking at the answers. However, is there any way to determine whether it is better to diagram a scenario as Either/Or rather than with multiple necessary condition? Unfortunately, if I came across a similar question I do not think I would recognize that the scenario can be diagrammed with subscripts as an Either/Or statement. This makes me worried that I am not prepared to tackle these kinds of conditional questions. Are there any similar problems that allows you choose between using an Either/Or diagram or one with multiple necessary/sufficient conditions? If so, can you direct me to them so I can get more practice?

[Adam Tyson]

It's not about which one is better or worse, sim, but about which one works best for you, and that can be seen as just a question of your personal style. Like Jeremy, I see the subscript approach here as somewhat new to my way of thinking, and I would be much more likely to do it the way that you did. But considering this alternate approach just gives me more tools in my toolkit, and that's always a good thing! When you come across an Either/Or conditional relationship consider taking the time to try both approaches and see which one you like better, which one is clearer and easier for you to use. Don't worry about missing the "right" approach, because any approach that works is right!

[chance123]

Hi, Powerscore,

I choose A correctly but based on elimination. The reason I hesitate to choose A is that the "almost impossible" thing written in the last sentence of this stimulus. If it is always almost impossible..., then there is still a slight possibility that something could happen. Is my reasoning correct?

And since this is a mostly support question, this little flaw is acceptable given that all the other answer choices evidently incorrect. Please tell me if I choose A base on the wrong reasoning.

Thank you in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

chance,

It sounds like you chose answer choice (A) on precisely the correct reasoning. If the only options for the people in the stimulus are jail or re-education, but re-education has almost no chance of working, then that strongly supports the idea that you should sentence those people to jail. It's almost impossible that anything else would work anyway. It might not quite meet the standards of a Must Be True question, but, as you point out, this is a Most Strongly Supported question, and that lower degree of proof (and only slightly lower!) is acceptable here.

Robert Carroll

[mahmed19]

Hello!

I diagrammed this problem similar to some of the people above and I got

DP = Large number of demerit points
CS = Convicted of a serious driving related offense
J = Jail
R = Reeducation

DP & CS→ J or R

However, I am not sure how to continue with the question if this method were to be used and how you would get to answer A. Would the contrapositive be:

/J and R --> DP or CS ?