LSAT 23 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q10

LR Question 10 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there…

QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen

CONCLUSION: There will be a lot less pollution if people stop driving.

REASONING: There is less pollution if you walk rather than drive.

ANALYSIS: We need to know how much pollution is caused by driving. Maybe it isn’t very much compared to agriculture,
manufacturing, housing, etc.

There’s another problem. We need to assume that people are currently driving when they could walk. Because sometimes people can’t walk. For example, if they live in the suburbs.

___________

1. This hurts the argument. It says that if you stop driving, then someone else will start driving and take your place.
2. CORRECT. A lot of people write this off, thinking “they never mentioned nonmoving running vehicles, this is out of scope”. That’s a bad habit taught by Kaplan.If you walk instead of drive, you help ease congestion. That means fewer vehicles will idle in traffic. Even though idle vehicles don’t produce as much pollution as moving vehicles, you’re still helping reduce the overall pollution because you’re reducing the additional pollution from time spent in traffic.
3. How, exactly, does this strengthen the argument? It seems like common sense information that doesn’t have to be stated. Everyone knows a Hummer pollutes more than a Prius.
4. The argument didn’t say people should walk instead of taking the bus. We should walk instead of driving ourselves.
5. This weakens the argument. You may take your car off the road, but your passengers start driving their own cars.

Recap: The question begins with “If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there”. It is a Strengthen question. Learn more about LSAT Strengthen questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.