2940

[zip]

P: Sleep deprivation has been, by a large margin, the leading non-narcotic cause of automobile accidents in this state for the last 5 years.

P: Last summer, Lydia's car spun out of control when she did not turn on her wipers after the onset of a sudden rainstorm.

(A): (Any circumstance preceding an automobile accident can be said to be a cause of that accident.)

C: Sleep deprivation has not been the only cause of automobile accidents in this state for the last 5 years.
Previous
Next
Visit arcade forum to discuss the question (QUESTION # 2940)

Neither premise validly supports the conclusion. the credited choice makes no mention about the state that Linda is in when she has the accident, and as such the inference based on this premise is invalid. There are a number of defects I've noticed in this section just as glaring.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Neither premise validly supports the conclusion. the credited choice makes no mention about the state that Linda is in when she has the accident, and as such the inference based on this premise is invalid.

I agree zip. While I would not say that the assumption is sufficient to ensure the conclusion, wouldn't you say that it is necessary for the conclusion to be validly drawn?

[zip]

Neither premise validly supports the conclusion. the credited choice makes no mention about the state that Linda is in when she has the accident, and as such the inference based on this premise is invalid.

I agree zip. While I would not say that the assumption is sufficient to ensure the conclusion, wouldn't you say that it is necessary for the conclusion to be validly drawn?

Right, it would be necessary relative to the argument including the credited premise-- otherwise who would care if the accident occurred right after something. So if the question were a necc assumption one, the credited choice would work if the question were for which premise is the assumption necessary for the conclusion to be properly drawn.

But as I understand the rules of the game as promulgated, the credited premise is supposed to present a sound argument in concert with the other two elements, which it clearly does not. Even if the standard is most sound, it is not close to a sound argument and on the LSAT the enable language implies a sufficient condition. So this question is inconsistent with this standard as well.

I know you have lots of questions in the category, most very well thought out, but a few flawed ones like this one get through from time to time.