LSAT 2 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q14

LR Question 14 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: The mayor boosts that the average ambulance turnaround time…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: The mayor has misrepresented how successful the reduction in top priority turnaround times was.

REASONING: The definition of top priority has changed: it now excludes cases involving electrocution and gunshot wounds. These are the most time consuming cases.

ANALYSIS: This sounds like a damning argument. But how many people are victims of gunshot wounds and electrocution compared to heart attacks? The argument would be stronger if it were a large amount.

___________

1. This tells us nothing. It could have been a very small decline. Even if the decline was large, that would not strengthen the argument.
2. This is irrelevant to our conclusion about whether the redefinition of top-priority ambulance cases was misleading.
3. This also tells us nothing. Even if experts agreed they could still all be wrong.
4. Other cities could all be wrong to do so. This doesn’t tell us how to evaluate the city’s situation.
5. CORRECT. This strongly strengthens the argument. Gunshot and electrocution wounds were a big deal. Excluding them is highly likely to have skewed the results.

Recap: The question begins with “The mayor boosts that the average ambulance turnaround time”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.