Q12 - Editorialist: Drivers with a large

[LSAT-Chang]

Could someone help explain why C is wrong? I picked A because the stimulus clearly states that either one should be done (sent to jail or receive driver reeducation). But why is C wrong? I thought it was a softer language than A so I almost picked it but didnt (but dont have a good enough reason for not having picked it).

[timmydoeslsat]

Good instincts on this question.

I would not pick C because harshness is not supported by anything in this passage.

We know this:

Drivers with large number of demerit points and have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or forced to do driver re-education.

Driver re-education recommended to a driver ---> Driver likely to be made more responsible

Almost always impossible to make them more responsible.

This triggers our contrapositive. This gives us ~Driver re-education recommended to a driver.

We know that we have to go with the other option which is jail.

We do not know about the harshness factor. We do not even know when we can conclude a situation of having drivers being recommended to do the re-education. All we were given is a necessary characteristic of when it should be recommended to them.

Always go with the one that has the proof to back it up. It really is like a mini reading comp passage!

[LSAT-Chang]

You are absolutely right. There is nothing about "harshness". I totally made my own assumption. Thanks always for the great explanations!!!!!!

[maryadkins]

Great explanation, ditto!

[amam321]

If someone can please help, I don't understand this question.

With A, it says that " drivers should be sent to jail." The question is "which statements provide the most support." The Powerscore book says this is another way of saying, " which one must be true." In the argument, it says it almost impossible to to make drivers with a large number of demerits more responsible drivers"- it doesnt say IMPOSSIBLE. So, I in question A, how can it be right? The logic says that if a person has a large number of demerits and has been convicted for serious offenses should be either sent to jail OR get drivers ed- question A says go to Jail.

[maryadkins]

(A) is right not just because of that first sentence but because of the second, too: ONLY if they are likely to be made more responsible should they get to go to re-education. So if the two options are: jail and re-education, and you only get to go to re-education if you're likely to learn to drive better, and it's almost always impossible (translation: unlikely) to make these guys drive better, it means they all should be sent to jail.

(B) is wrong because there isn't any talk of best chances of making anyone more responsible.

(C) not serious enough punishment? Nowhere does it say that.

(D) the stimulus says nothing about people who haven't committed any offenses.

(E) like (D), the stimulus says nothing about people who haven't been convicted for a driving-related offense. It's only about people who both have demerits AND have been convicted. We don't know anything about people outside of this category.

Hope this helps!

[hzj184]

If someone can please help, I don't understand this question.

With A, it says that " drivers should be sent to jail." The question is "which statements provide the most support." The Powerscore book says this is another way of saying, " which one must be true." In the argument, it says it almost impossible to to make drivers with a large number of demerits more responsible drivers"- it doesnt say IMPOSSIBLE. So, I in question A, how can it be right? The logic says that if a person has a large number of demerits and has been convicted for serious offenses should be either sent to jail OR get drivers ed- question A says go to Jail.

drivers with a large number of demerit points + convicted of a serious driving-related offense —> jail or re-education
re-education —> made drivers responsible
~almost impossible to male drivers responsible —> ~ re-education

jail! --> A