LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q3

LR Question 3 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Opponents of allowing triple-trailer trucks to use the national…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: Triple trailer trucks are safer than other commercial vehicles.

REASONING: In some areas on certain highways the local accident rate for triple-trailers is lower than the national rate for other commercial vehicles.

ANALYSIS: This argument compares local data for triple-trailers to national data for other vehicles. It’s very bad to mix and match data.

It’s like saying that the US on the whole has a colder climate than New York State. Why? Because certain local areas (such as Alaska) have a colder climate than New York State.

It could be that the roads with a lower triple trailer accident rate are abnormally safe roads.

___________

1. This doesn’t tell us anything about which type of truck is safer. It just tells us a useless fact about trucks’ carrying capacity.
2. CORRECT. The argument only used evidence for the safer Western highways. This shows that evidence is flawed. The argument should have compared local rates for trucks to local rates for other vehicles. Or they could have compared national rates to national rates. The local to national comparison is misleading.
3. This doesn’t tell us if opponents were right or wrong. It’s irrelevant.
4. Does this license affect safety? Who knows? This tells us nothing.
5. We don’t care about comparisons to the past. We want to compare triple-trailers to other types of commercial vehicles, now, in the present.

Recap: The question begins with “Opponents of allowing triple-trailer trucks to use the national”. It is a Weaken question. Learn how to master LSAT Weaken questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.