Q21 - A government study indicates that raising

[chalhou1]

I was wavering between B and C and it was completely wrong. Help please?

[noah]

That's frustrating to be choosing between two incorrect answers! It sounds like you didn't notice the shift from the premises to the conclusion:

raising speed limit to actual average (120kph) reduces accidents --> we should set the speed limit at 120kph

Here's an analogy where the gap might be clearer:

Drinking milk can make your hair curlier --> we should drink milk.

In the latter, who is to say we should do things that make our hair curlier? In the first one, who is to say that we should do anything that reduces accidents. Yes, it seems like a pretty obvious assumption, but it is an assumption! And, realistically, there may be reasons not to set the speed limit that high (reduced efficiency, reduced revenue from speeding tickets, increase pace of human existence)

(E) fills the gap - we should do whatever reduces the accident rate.

(A) is suspicious because of the "only." And it's wrong because there's no discussion of what to do or not to do with other road types.

(B) is tempting - should we really apply these rules everywhere?
But notice that it only relates to the conclusion and helps justify that it should be uniform. But, should we set it as uniform based on the premise given? Remember, we're trying to help the argument, not the conclusion. (B) is a principle that would help this silly argument: Montana is not applying the laws that most other states are using to regulate their high-speed roadways, therefore Montana is not doing what it should.

(C) is similar to (B) - where's the discussion of accidents that will link the premise to the conclusion? Furthermore, why do we need all the roads to have roughly equal average speeds. There's no discussion of the variety of average speeds among different roads.

(D) is clearly out of scope.

So, keep an eye on conclusions with "should" in them - often the assumption/principle will help link the premise to that "should."

Got it?

[LSAT-Chang]

Hi Noah,
I ended up correctly choosing (E) but was also really tempted by (B) because I wasn't sure what the "core" was. I boxed in "reduces the accident rate" because it seemed like that was the evidence, but the sentence starting with "Since" also seemed like that was the starting point for the core. Do you see what I mean? I thought maybe the first sentence is just there to distract us with that "reduces the accident rate" when in fact the last sentence is all that matters. Because the word "since" introduces a premise I was also thinking that this might be the core (so maybe B is the answer):

actual average speed for level, straight stretches of high-speed roadways tends to be 120 km/hr --> this should be set as a uniform national speed limit for level, straight stretches of all such roadways

in that case (E) is totally out of scope. From that core, we would say to ourselves "why should we set this as a national speed limit??" well we need to bridge this gap with an answer choice that says the average speed for high-speed roadways should be set as the national speed limit. Does this make sense at all? So I was curious to know how you knew that the first sentence was in fact relevant and not just something the test makers put in there as a distractor.

[noah]

Good question.

The way we can see the core, practically speaking, is this:

First we think that the core is: actual speed is 75mph --> 75mph should be set as national speed limit.

BUT, then as we debate that argument, we have to take into account what the other premise, that raising the speed limit to the actual will reduce the accident rate. So, 75 mph, the actual rate, becomes the data we use to make a specific suggestion.

We definitely need the 75mph fact, but it's not essential to the core since the connection between that being the norm, and that being the speed to use for a new law is already supported by the other premise. (FYI, it's fine if you had it in mind as part of the core--probably some of my colleagues would say to add it in--but ideally you saw that there was no real gap associated with it.).

To turn this into a lesson, don't just use the "since" as your guide for what's a premise, when you have a core and working to identify a gap, keep in mind any other facts that you have been told.

I hope that helps.

[LSATeater]

Hi MLSAT,

I just took this PT and was debating between B and E for this question.

I totally see what Noah means about the core of the argument above but I decided on E in a slightly different way.

Whenever I'm choosing between two choices (especially towards the end of the section) on LR, I always try to attack both to see which one is weaker. Choice E had no clear weaknesses for me since it echoes the 'reduction of traffic accident rate' sentiment from the argument. Choice B, on the other hand, made no mention of the accidents (the core as Noah explained) so, in retrospect, I could've just eliminated it just for this weakness. However, during real time this didn't cross my mind.

Instead I thought about the implications of B and it doesn't really seem to support the 120 km/h limit as the the argument seeks to establish. (In fact, it doesn't really support any one law or proposal over another.) It just says laws should be uniform.

The argument has a progressive feel to it whereas choice B seems to be a principle advocating structural legal consistency across jurisdictions whilst remaining mum on the spirit of the law.

So, I eliminated B and moved on.

I'm curious, was this a good way to tackle this question?

[noah]

Hi MLSAT,

I just took this PT and was debating between B and E for this question.

I totally see what Noah means about the core of the argument above but I decided on E in a slightly different way.

Whenever I'm choosing between two choices (especially towards the end of the section) on LR, I always try to attack both to see which one is weaker. Choice E had no clear weaknesses for me since it echoes the 'reduction of traffic accident rate' sentiment from the argument. Choice B, on the other hand, made no mention of the accidents (the core as Noah explained) so, in retrospect, I could've just eliminated it just for this weakness. However, during real time this didn't cross my mind.

Instead I thought about the implications of B and it doesn't really seem to support the 120 km/h limit as the the argument seeks to establish. (In fact, it doesn't really support any one law or proposal over another.) It just says laws should be uniform.

The argument has a progressive feel to it whereas choice B seems to be a principle advocating structural legal consistency across jurisdictions whilst remaining mum on the spirit of the law.

So, I eliminated B and moved on.

I'm curious, was this a good way to tackle this question?

Choosing the one that's closer to the core is definitely a smart tool when down to two answers. I think your thinking and mine aren't that far from each other.

As for the progressive feel, I avoid that sort of thinking about the test, but I know that some people feel it can help.

[redcobra21]

That was a great explanation, Noah. Thanks. I did this problem in Manhattan 15 today and just had an additional question if you get the chance.

I'm still struggling a bit to understand your explanation. In your original post, I think I would take issue with the way you characterized the core. I think it should be: actual speed TENDS to be 75 mph (i.e. the average actual speed is usually, but not always, 75 mph) --> 75 mph should be the UNIFORM national speed limit (i.e. speed limit should be the same everywhere).

I credit Manhattan's approach of paying close attention to detail/qualifiers with helping me gain additional points, so when I looked at this question, the part that jumped out to me was how the argument jumps from "tends" to "uniform." Even if I take your point that the first sentence should be ascribed equal significance, that still means that the average speed limit is different in different places (for simplicity sake, let's say that it's 70 mph in the South due to some peculiar reason and 80 mph in the North).

In that case, if the actual average speed in the South is 70 mph (and this is the level that can be deemed "safe" vis-a-vis the first sentence), how would it be fair to say that we should have a UNIFORM NATIONAL speed limit? Wouldn't that make the driving situation in the South more dangerous now because 75 mph would be a speed greater than the actual average speed in that region? In that case, you don't know that the 75 mph speed lmiit would reduce the rate of traffic accidents, so how could (E) still be valid (even if you take E as a sufficient assumption answer)?

I think that's why I ened up picking (B). There seemed to be a glaring gap between the premise (the average actual speed TENDS to be 75 mph) to the conclusion (the average actual speed should be the SAME everywhere in the country). (B) seemed to address this more appropriately than (E)

What do you think? Thanks in advance for your help

[noah]

That was a great explanation, Noah. Thanks. I did this problem in Manhattan 15 today and just had an additional question if you get the chance.

I'm still struggling a bit to understand your explanation. In your original post, I think I would take issue with the way you characterized the core. I think it should be: actual speed TENDS to be 75 mph (i.e. the average actual speed is usually, but not always, 75 mph) --> 75 mph should be the UNIFORM national speed limit (i.e. speed limit should be the same everywhere).

I credit Manhattan's approach of paying close attention to detail/qualifiers with helping me gain additional points, so when I looked at this question, the part that jumped out to me was how the argument jumps from "tends" to "uniform." Even if I take your point that the first sentence should be ascribed equal significance, that still means that the average speed limit is different in different places (for simplicity sake, let's say that it's 70 mph in the South due to some peculiar reason and 80 mph in the North).

In that case, if the actual average speed in the South is 70 mph (and this is the level that can be deemed "safe" vis-a-vis the first sentence), how would it be fair to say that we should have a UNIFORM NATIONAL speed limit? Wouldn't that make the driving situation in the South more dangerous now because 75 mph would be a speed greater than the actual average speed in that region? In that case, you don't know that the 75 mph speed lmiit would reduce the rate of traffic accidents, so how could (E) still be valid (even if you take E as a sufficient assumption answer)?

I think that's why I ened up picking (B). There seemed to be a glaring gap between the premise (the average actual speed TENDS to be 75 mph) to the conclusion (the average actual speed should be the SAME everywhere in the country). (B) seemed to address this more appropriately than (E)

What do you think? Thanks in advance for your help

Great question. It is smart to keep an eye on those little words.

I agree that there's a bit of wiggle room in there--maybe FL's average is actually 20 mph because of the slow drivers there! But, I see (B) as too broad to help here, even for a principle. If we wanted to address the gap you've identified you'd want something like "The national average speed for any type of roadway (or just for straight high speed roadways) is close enough to local average speeds for the benefits of any related safety measures to apply in a widespread manner."

What do you think?

[ericha3535]

I believe the confusion comes with the wording, "traffic laws."

Because it is true that we are trying to help an argument that is saying that whatever reduces the accidents should be implemented.

Now, setting 75mph as the speed limit is the traffic law and by the stimulus, it is a law that will help lowering the accident rate.

I guess all the thing I am saying is implied but still makes sense.

I think my interpretation makes B very attractive.

What do you guys think...

[ying_yingjj]

I got the answer correct.

But I did not know what "level, straight stretches" are.

In case anyone got threw off by these words, here are the meanings:

level : flat
stretch : street, road.

level, straight stretches = flat, straight roads.

I feel LSAC is sometimes not testing people's logical reasoning ability, they are testing those nonsense things other than the logic.

I feel this kind of wordings are biased against the people who did not grow up in the US.

LSAC - biased.

[contropositive]

That's frustrating to be choosing between two incorrect answers! It sounds like you didn't notice the shift from the premises to the conclusion:

raising speed limit to actual average (120kph) reduces accidents --> we should set the speed limit at 120kph

Here's an analogy where the gap might be clearer:

Drinking milk can make your hair curlier --> we should drink milk.

In the latter, who is to say we should do things that make our hair curlier? In the first one, who is to say that we should do anything that reduces accidents. Yes, it seems like a pretty obvious assumption, but it is an assumption! And, realistically, there may be reasons not to set the speed limit that high (reduced efficiency, reduced revenue from speeding tickets, increase pace of human existence)

(E) fills the gap - we should do whatever reduces the accident rate.

(A) is suspicious because of the "only." And it's wrong because there's no discussion of what to do or not to do with other road types.

(B) is tempting - should we really apply these rules everywhere?
But notice that it only relates to the conclusion and helps justify that it should be uniform. But, should we set it as uniform based on the premise given? Remember, we're trying to help the argument, not the conclusion. (B) is a principle that would help this silly argument: Montana is not applying the laws that most other states are using to regulate their high-speed roadways, therefore Montana is not doing what it should.

(C) is similar to (B) - where's the discussion of accidents that will link the premise to the conclusion? Furthermore, why do we need all the roads to have roughly equal average speeds. There's no discussion of the variety of average speeds among different roads.

(D) is clearly out of scope.

So, keep an eye on conclusions with "should" in them - often the assumption/principle will help link the premise to that "should."

Got it?

Hi Noah,

Isn't A and B wrong for the same reasons? the argument is talking about speed for LEVEL STRAIGHT STRETCHES of high-speed roadways but A and B are talking about high-speed roadways? I know for these types of questions its okay of the answer is broad but I was not sure if that's another reason to eliminate A and B

[uhdang]

Please see if this analysis for B is right.

When they say, "Traffic laws applying to high-speed roadways should apply uniformly across the nation", I thought it's not clear as to whether this law has to apply only to high-speed roadways or ALL kinds of roads, since they don't specify that. Saying should apply uniformly across the nation really broadens up possibilities as to WHERE to apply. Since the conclusion only targets high-speed roadways, this principle would be way too extreme to be applied.

I would greatly appreciate any help with this.

[maryadkins]

No, because read again carefully: Both (B) and the conclusion are discussing high-speed roadways (I'm not sure where you're getting that one isn't).

(B) is wrong because of what Noah wrote above: (B) could be supportive of an absurd argument when interpreted in a different context. It doesn't link the premise to the conclusion.

[zen]

I'm going to post an explanation to solidify my own understanding. Much of the previous discussion has been very helpful.

1st Step: Identify the Core( I did not effectively do this which led me to choosing (B))-- Raising speed limits on high speed roads reduces the accident rate. It follows with more detail at what this speed should actually be and as I reread this, I notice I had put too much weight onto thesecond part of the stimulus than the first part which contains the heart of the problem.

2nd Step: What is our task?-- We want to find a principle that would justify this reasoning; this principle will get us from the core( raising speed limits reduces accidents) to being able to conclude that we should adopt the measure specifically described in the second part of the stimulus.

Wrong Choices:

(A)- We don't know that uniform speed limits should apply only to(this necessary condition indicator made me wary of this choice right off the bat) high-speed roads! Maybe it helps normal roads reduce accidents to. We are only given enough information to conclude that this measure would help high speed roads, but not enough info to conclude about how the measure would affect non-high speed roads.

(B)- Very tempting and I chose this on my timed PT. After reading it, I think an easy way to eliminate this is to remember the core. It's about reducing accidents AND it's about advocating for the adoption of a specific policy. This policy has not yet been implemented!! AC (B) makes no mentions of accidents AND it is assuming the policy proposal is already a traffic law when we seen to have evidence to the contrary! Maybe if it was already a law this would work, but as it stands, this AC does not obtain!

(C)- Once again, the necessary condition in this AC made me skeptical( it seems that for most questions where we are looking to justify or properly draw a conclusion, we are not looking for answers that are heavy with necessary conditional language; after all, we are looking for an answer that can be used as a sufficient assumption allowing us to draw the argument. This AC also does not get at the core-- we are talking about reducing accidents; this AC merely seems to talk about the second part of the stimulus and it does not allows us to conclude "Yes, we should implement the measure".

(D)- Totally out-of-scope. We are provided no information on laws that are violated or what constitutes a good or bad law.

Correct Answer:

(E)- If this principle is used, we can conclude the measure should be implemented. We know the measure would reduce traffic accidents; so, since the measure reduces the rate of traffic accidents( coined the "accident rate" in the stimulus) we should adopt it according to this AC. This gets us from the core to the end of the stimulus which advocates the specific policy/measure.

C)

[zss998]

What I don't understand here is that answer E says ANY MEASURE. Isn't that going beyond the scope? The stimulus talks about a specific measure, he doesn't, for example, suggest outlawing driving across the board to reduce the rate of traffic accidents.

[xzhao01]

What I don't understand here is that answer E says ANY MEASURE. Isn't that going beyond the scope? The stimulus talks about a specific measure, he doesn't, for example, suggest outlawing driving across the board to reduce the rate of traffic accidents.

Far as I understand it, with Principle Support questions, the principle you're looking for can go beyond scope, as long as it supports the argument. I think if this was the answer to a Necessary Assumption question, it would be eliminated for going too far. I also have difficulty with this distinction, which is probably why I picked B (the more "in-scope" seeming choice) initially.

[haeeunjee]

I chose B in real time but eliminated it during review.

"Traffic laws applying to high-speed roadways should apply uniformly across the nation." Okay, great. But guess what? The traffic laws aren't in place yet in the stimulus. They are proposals, not actual laws. The stimulus calls for the creation of these traffic laws; they don't exist yet or at least the stimulus isn't talking about actual traffic laws. This is why B has no teeth - so what if traffic laws need to apply uniformly? We're not talking about actual traffic laws in place here. The conclusion isn't that we need to change existing traffic laws to make sure there's one uniform national law. We're talking about how to go from "this traffic law proposal could reduce accidents" --> "okay, let's implement this traffic law [everywhere]."

Hope this helped.

[WesleyC316]

I was debating between B & E as well. B is actually saying, when you apply a law to a high-speed roadway, you should apply uniformly. But it doesn't say why we should adopt that law in the first place, which is exactly what E says. In a way, answer choice B is founded on E, because without it, B makes no sense. That's why E is the core here, aka the right answer choice.

[JohnZ880]

Very frustrating. I think the problem I had with this question is deciding when it's safe/not safe to make assumptions. I often read that the LSAC expects us to make obvious assumptions. I thought the fact that we were saving lives was an obvious assumption. So my thinking was of course we should implement the law if it saves lives, that's not really a gap in the argument or at least the gap that the LSAC is looking for. Thus, I focused on the gap between the nationwide average and the uniform nationwide speed limit, as already explained by posters above.

Going forward, I'll stick directly to the core and not take anything for granted.