LSAT 23 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q26

LR Question 26 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception

CONCLUSION: We should restrict teenagers’ driving licenses.

REASONING: Teens are 7% of drivers but cause 14% of traffic deaths (not accidents).

ANALYSIS: There are an infinite number of wrong answers. The easiest way to solve this question is to think about the reasoning underlying the argument.

The author argues that teens are bad drivers. The wrong answers help show that teens aren’t actually bad drivers. There are other reasons they cause more traffic deaths.

___________

1. This shows that the teenagers’ cars may be the problem. They’re not necessarily bad drivers.
2. This shows that teen drivers may drive well, but be more likely to die in an accident if they do have one.
3. The more you drive, the more accidents you will have. Not because you’re a worse driver. If you’re on the road more often, there are more chances of an accident.
4. CORRECT. This could explain why teenagers cause more deaths. But it doesn’t excuse their behavior. This supports the argument that we should restrict teenagers’ licenses: they cause deadly accidents.
5. This means that teens will cause more deaths even if they drive just as well as adults. There are more people in the car who will die in an accident.

Recap: The question begins with “Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.