LSAT 124 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q26

LR Question 26 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Editorialist: Some people argue that highway speed limits…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: An increase in highway safety speeds would be unsafe.

REASONING: Higher speed limits would cause even higher average speeds. Current speeders would not increase their speed, but those who obey the law would increase their speed to match the speeders.

ANALYSIS: An increase in average speeds isn’t necessarily unsafe. Most traffic accidents on highways are due to people trying to pass each other. If higher average speeds decreased passing, accidents could decrease.

___________

1. “Some” can be a very small number, as low as one. Average speeds could still increase even if a few drivers did not increase their speed.
2. CORRECT. This would make highways safer, weakening the argument. According to the editorialist’s own evidence, highway speed would become more uniform. Speeders would stay the same, while everyone else would increase their speed.
3. This could mean that 51% had not had an accident, while 49% had been involved in an accident. Or maybe 100% had not. Without clearer info, it’s hard to now how this would affect the argument.
4. Like A, this is to be expected, but it could be an inconsequential number.
5. That’s nice…But they could be wrong, and kill people. This could be perfectly consistent with the argument… Maybe their judgment will be even worse with a new speed limit.

Recap: The question begins with “Editorialist: Some people argue that highway speed limits”. It is a Weaken question. Learn more about LSAT Weaken questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.