LSAT 63, Logical Reasoning II, Q1, LSATHacks

LR Question 1 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Commentator: In last week's wreck involving one of Acme…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: Acme Engines should be held liable.

REASONING: Acme claims there was nothing wrong with knee level switches. Yet its new locomotives did not have knee level switches. It cost $500,000 to move the switches, so it’s more likely that the switches were unsafe.

ANALYSIS: This isn’t a bulletproof argument, but it’s common in legal cases. Civil legal cases generally have to be proven only based on a standard of “more likely than not.” So an argument doesn’t have to be 100% certain for damages to be awarded.

The fact that Acme spent $500,000 is meant to show that changing the switch was a serious issue. The high price indicates the company didn’t move the switches purely for convenience. Therefore the switch may have been done for safety reasons.

___________

1. The argument didn’t claim that the engineer had no fault. It just claimed that Acme was responsible. More than one group can be responsible for something.
2. If the older locomotives had been remodeled then the engineer wouldn’t have accidentally hit the switch with his knee.
3. Not quite. The changes only affected new cars. The changes can’t explain why a crash occurred in the old cars.
4. The argument used this evidence to show that the switches were hazardous. Otherwise, why would the company have spent $500,000 replacing them?
5. CORRECT. If the company spent a lot of money moving some of the switches then they likely realized there was a risk of an accident.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.