LSAT 116 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Politician: The law should not require people to wear…

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning – Flawed

CONCLUSION: We should not be required to wear seat belts in cars.

REASONING: We don’t have to wear seat belts on motorcycles, and it’s safer to be in a car without a seat belt than on a motorcycle with one.

ANALYSIS: This question pretty much requires you to use outside knowledge. It’s true that you’re safer in a car without a seat belt than on a motorcycle with one…but why is that?

If you have a motorcycle accident with a seat belt, then you are strapped to a burning hot hunk of metal while it bounces over the hard ground. It will crush you, or burn you, or both.

Yikes. There’s a reason motorcycles don’t come with seat belts.

So a motorcycle is an inappropriate analogy. The same circumstance (seat belt) is discussed in a different and improper context.

___________

1. This argument does not depend on an analogy.
2. This does use an analogy, but it’s not a terrible idea. The analogy is appropriate.
3. CORRECT. This follows this structure used in the stimulus. There are obvious risks to standing in a roller coaster. On a cliff, standing is arguably safer, as it lets you stay back from the edge. The comparison is inappropriate.
4. Uses an analogy, but the argument isn’t bad.
5. This is very tempting, as the park analogy is inappropriate. Aside from it being larger, it’s likely also full of people. But it’s not clear if Vanessa is actually allowed to let her dog run free in her backyard.

Recap: The question begins with “Politician: The law should not require people to wear”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flawed Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.