Q26 - Editorialist: Some people argue

[walkerdoreen07]

Can't figure this argument out...im thinking answer is D because if someone violates current speed they will also violate higher speed????

I don't understand answer being B. i think my thinking is off:(

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Well let me ask you something...

If uniformity of speed is the most important factor in highway safety, what would be the effect of the slower drivers (those who are currently obeying the law) now driving the same speed as the faster drivers (those who currently exceed the speed limit by 10-20 mph)?

Under the old system, some drivers drove fast, other drivers drove slow. Under the new system, they all drive fast. If uniformity is the most important factor in highway safety, won't we now have safer roads?

The author is arguing against a higher speed limit. We want to weaken this argument. So, we'd like an answer that says why it's a good idea to raise the speed limit, and answer choice (B) gives us one - uniformity in the rate of speed amongst drivers.

[acisne7]

I now understand why it is B. But i was having a hard time getting rid of A and D. Could you please break it down?

Thankyou

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's take a quick look at the incorrect answers...

(A) does not weaken the argument since it is consistent with the claim that most drivers who currently violate posted speed limits would obey higher ones.
(C) is irrelevant. The percentage of drivers who violate current speed limits and that are involved in accidents does not tell us whether highway safety would be decreased by raising the speed limit.
(D) supports rather than undermines the conclusion.
(E) is tempting but remember that most of these people would not violate the new speed limit. The argument is that if the slow people start driving faster, that highway safety would be decreased. So, this too is irrelevant.

Hope that helps!

[andrea.devas]

Hi, I'm having a hard time figuring out the core for this argument. I understand the author's conclusion is that increasing the highway speed limits would decrease highway safety ( or so I believe this is the conclusion). I'm having a hard time figuring out the premises that the author uses to support the conclusion. Is it just almost all drivers who obey current speed limits would increase their speed in response to higher speed limits?

Thanks in advance for all your help.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm having a hard time figuring out the premises that the author uses to support the conclusion. Is it just almost all drivers who obey current speed limits would increase their speed in response to higher speed limits?

It's a bit more than that.

1. current average highway speeds are 10-20 percent higher than the actual posted speed limit.
2. if we increased the speed limit, higher average speeds would result.
3. most drivers who currently violate speed limits would obey higher ones.
4. almost all of those who obey current speed limits would increase their driving speed.

Statements 1, 3, and 4 are premises. Statement 2 is an intermediate conclusion.

#4 (premise), is used to support the #2 (intermediate conclusion). All of the information though is important, because the correct answer is a relative comparison between the current state of affairs and what would be the case if we raised the speed limit.

Make sense?

[andrea.devas]

Thanks! And just to reclarify all those premises support the intermediate conclusion of " higher speed limits leads to higher average highway speeds" which support the argument's main conclusion : any increase in speed limits would greatly decrease highway safety.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly right andrea.devas!

[shaynfernandez]

I saw the argument as this:
Counter Claim: Highway speeds should increase to reflect actual speeds.
Supporting Premise: Most who obey the current speed laws would go faster.
Sub-Conclusion: Higher average speeds would result, example of the past.
Conclusion: Increase in speed limit law --> decrease in safety.

I reached this question with a few minutes remaining and was stuck between A and B but chose to pick A and go back to a previous problem I was unsure of.

Let's take a quick look at the incorrect answers...

(A) does not weaken the argument since it is consistent with the claim that most drivers who currently violate posted speed limits would obey higher ones.

I can't say that I agree with ruling A out simply for this reason.
A) is talking about drivers who OBEY the current speed limit, that they would not change their speed tendencies. A is not talking about drivers who currently violate the posted speed limit, we already know those drivers won't have an issue with the new law. The room for skepticism is with the drivers who currently follow the speed limit, how will they react.

I don't like A because I don't feel it is strong enough some can mean 100% or %1 on strengthen and weakening problems they are more closely tied to represent -50%. I do think A weakens the argument I just don't think it seriously weakens.

With answer choice B. on the other hand I felt like it required an assumption. I feel like if B is true "that uniformity of speeds among vehicles is more important for highway safety than is low aver highway speed" then it requires the assumption that those who OBEY the current speed limit would not over indulge, and would join the uniformity of the new speed limit. The author does in fact suggest that the key problem is those who OBEY that they would likely increase their speeds... ok but by how much? How do we know they will not overindulge in this new found freedom?

For that reason, that B felt like it needed an assumption, I just regrettably chose A. I felt A was a safe bet.

Can anyone explain to me how we know that those who currently obey the speed limits would continue to obey the new speed limit?

[nicholasasquith]

I eliminated A and D almost immediately because they introduce nothing inconsistent with the premises themselves, its almost like extracting could be true statements from the premises. When I'm approaching weaken/strengthen questions, I need to see in the ACs some sort of gap being exposed, but A and D did not seem to give me any new information.

A) Some drivers who obeyed the old limit won't obey the higher limit
Okay, so what? The Editorialist didn't say all, he said almost all people would increase their speed.

D) Some of the drivers who violated the old limit will violate the higher limit.
Same thing, Editorialist says most of the old violaters will obey the new limit.


Consequently, C) and E) make some assumptions if you want them to weaken the argument.

C) would have to make two assumptions to work. The first is that them never being in an accident makes them safer drivers, and the second is that they'd have to constitute the majority of drivers. I think EVEN then, we'd have to assume that a majority of safer drivers would mean the highways are safer overall..too many leaps.

E) would have us assume what the violators "think" is safe, is actually safe.

[csunnerberg13]

Question about answer choice E: wouldn't E also weaken this argument because if people don't care what the posted speed limit is anyway, there would likely be no effect one way or the other on highway safety. People would continue to do what they want and the situation would be stagnant - i.e., not following her conclusion that "any such increase would decrease highway safety."

Thanks

[xareign]

I am writing this to kind of explain to myself what I did wrong and perhaps also help with the discussion. I chose C because I was attracteed to highway accident, and thought if that were true, then those drivers would transfer their safe driving to the limit increase. Bad assumption on my part and the reason why I am in the mid 150s for PTs.....

Here is my take on what's going on
------

Argument Form:

1. Most violators would obey new limit by dec. speed
2. Most non-violators would inc. speed under new limit
sub-C. [Any limit inc.] will result in higher avg. speeds.
C. Any limit inc. on speeds will dec. safety

Key Elements

- The author is saying that given the limit inc., the violators speeds will dec. while non-violators will inc.

Gaps:

- The author (maybe not relevant) strangely goes from limit inc. resulting in higher avg. speeds to limit inc. resulting in dec. in safety
- to get the avg. speed inc., the auth assumes that either i) the violators will decrease their speed to the new limit and the non-violators will POSSIBLY increase their speed WAY ABOVE the limit, or ii) the limit increase will be ridiculously high such that it will guarantee a higher speed average.

Answers:

A) lures you into the messy percentages and tries to trap you into thinking it is appealing for that reason. What is key is that it says "some," which in LSAT-speak means 1% - 49%. But what if we take the 1% and assume there are 100 non-violators? Then we have only ONE PERSON to affect the average. Won't do much, and thus not harmful to the argument.

B) Aha! This links up with the Gaps. What if driving speed equality is the main cause of safety and NOT lower avgs.? Then this argument is not really going anywhere....

C) (My trap) This tries to lure you into thinking that accidents of the PRE-NEW LIMIT group are applicable to the POST-NEW LIMIT group. But that would be an assumption on your part, not the author's.

D) Nope. In fact, this supports the argument because this would make the higher speed avg more likely.

E) For me, I did not find this answer appealing at all because it places dependence on the beliefs of the violators.....wait what? How does that help? We don't know what the violators are thinking and we would require assumptions on our part (and not the author's) to give this answer traction. What if the violators are insane speedsters who think as long as you don't kill more than 10 people per accident, then then going 20% higher than limit is safe? This could strengthen! Not good. (E Also doesn't say anything about the new limit group.)

What do you guys think?

[Mab6q]

C) (My trap) This tries to lure you into thinking that accidents of the PRE-NEW LIMIT group are applicable to the POST-NEW LIMIT group. But that would be an assumption on your part, not the author's.

What do you guys think?

I really like this explanation for C. This is a tough question, because it's easy to forget the argument core.

If you're having a hard time with the question, I think it helps to conceptually picture out this argument. Here's what's going on.


People believe we should increase average speeds on highways to match the average speeds people are actually driving, which is 10-20 percent higher that posted limits.

Premise: most drivers who currently violate speeds would obey the higher speeds, but those who currently obey would increase their speeds.

Intermediate conclusion: this would increase average highway speeds

conclusion: such an increase in speeds would decrease highway safety.

There are so many things to take out of this core, you could teach an entire lesson on it. In real life this might make sense, but on the LSAT, higher speeds don't necessarily equate to less safety. You have to notice this term shift between the intermediate conclusion and the conclusion. The difficulty really comes from the ACs however, because the LSAT rarely spills the answer choice out for us the way we want. I'm believe the above posters have adequately addressed all of the answers, so I'm going to focus on B and C as those are the ones that gave me a hard time.

B. essentially what this is telling us is that having everyone drive at similar speeds is much more important than having lower speeds. This is pretty much what we were getting at. This puts a huge gap between the reasoning, because it tells us that the issue is not higher speeds, but the fact that everyone is not driving on the same level.

C. this one is tricky, but it really doesn't do anything to the argument core, which focuses on the new drivers. The editorialist is pointing to the possibly increase in speeds for those who are currently driving at the right speeds, so whether or not most of those who are violating the speed limit get involved in accidents is not important.

Just my two cents.

[robinzhang7]

I have a question:

I originally tried to find an answer that was more along the lines of:

"Uniformity of speed makes highways safer than does any increase in speed make it more dangerous."

Is this bolded part the same as what (B) gives us : "....safer than does low average speed?

I was just trying to wrap my mind around this negation partly because of (B)'s mention of "low speed" rather than "increasing speed" found in the stimulus.

Would it also be correct to say that:

"Lack of uniformity of speed makes highways more dangerous than does high average speed" is the same as:
"Lack of uniformity of speed makes highways more dangerous than does any decrease in speed make it safer."

Could a Geek take a look at this?

Thanks so much! I just want to solidify my understanding of Answer Choice (B).

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're looking for a perfectly written answer, but Strengthen and Weaken don't give you those all the time.

Sometimes it's a little messy. You're correct: we would rather rank "MORE uniform speed" against "HIGHER average speed" in this case. It would be a tighter fit for the core.

Rather than using comparatives, they used absolutes in (B).

But Strengthen and Weaken don't mean PROVE and REFUTE, just improve or detract. The language doesn't have to be perfect to be the MOST helpful/hurtful idea.

So if you think of (B) as giving you a general rule of safety: "We're really more concerned with vehicles going the same speed than we are with vehicles going too fast" ... then you can see how raising the speed limit seems in accordance with our overall safety priorities.

[Heart Shaped Box]

The key to this question really hinges on the understanding of the argument (duh, no sh$t lol) but more so on this one, cuz if you don’t, B would make no sense to you and the trap ones would become really attractive.

The conclusion basically says: a higher average speed limit would decrease safety.

Why? Premises: cuz everybody would be going higher as a result of the new higher speed limit. (kinda feels like circular reasoning a little but not really)

Gap/assumption: if everybody drives at a “higher” speed limit, then that’s bad for safety. The key here is this “higher” average speed limit is bad.

Another way to look at it:

Premise: since everybody would be going at a higher speed. (HS)

Conclusion: therefore it’s bad. (B)

Assumption: If higher, then bad. HS → B

Well, what if the uniformity of this driving speed actually outweighs the risk associated with a higher average speed? B points that out.

If we have a firm grasp on this concept, then C and E becomes massively irrelevant and much easier to eliminate.

C: those who violate the current speed limit, most of them have never been in a accident before. Okay, but what does this have anything to do with a “higher” average speed limit is bad? They are still gonna be driving at a higher speed limit,(obey higher ones) aren’t they? Do you even read the conclusion, answer C?

E: same thing here. those who violate the current limit, what did they do this time? Oh, most of them decide their speeds according to their will. Again, what does that have anything to do with this notion of a “higher” speed limit is bad? Read the conclusion, answer E!

A and D simply repeats the premises.

[LolaC289]

I think this one is pretty tough...I eliminated A, D & E quickly and was left with B & C.

So when I was testing, I thought there was a big gap in (B), that is assuming increased highway speed limits would bring more uniformity than before.

The argument goes like follows:

Conclusion: Increase highway speed limits decrease safety.

Premise1: Those who currently obey the old speed limits will increase their speed.

Premise2: Those who currently overspeed will obey the increased highway speed limit.

But we don't know HOW MUCH those who obey the old speed limits would increase, as a result of the change.

We have to assume on average, their speed increase would not greatly exceeds the increased limits.

Let's say there are currently 10 drivers, 5 of them overspeed at 120km/h and 5 of them obey the current speed limits 100km/h.

After the increase, 5 overspeed drivers still drives at 120km/h, but those who used to obey the limits increase their speed to 180km/h.

In this scenario, increased speed limits do not bring more uniformity. It may even decrease uniformity, speed-wise.

Above is my biggest problem with the correct answer choice (B).

My reason for choosing C is because, if most drivers who overspeed were less prone to accidents than those who obey the limits, then it shows that increasing speed may be good for safety because who used to drive safely continue to drive safety, and those who used to drive slow and have many more accidents reduce accidents as a result of speed increase. Therefore overall the safety would be enhanced.

I realized in review that there are at least two problem with this.

First, "most drivers who overspeed had never been involved in a highway accident" tells nothing about those who do not overspeed(who obey the current limits). It could be that even the 20% of the overspeed drivers causes 99% of the accidents, while those who do not overspeed basically had zero accidents.

Second, even if the drives who overspeed involves in less car accidents then those who don't, it does not mean it is speed that contribute to this. It can be that those who overspeed were better drivers themselves, they overspeed because they are more skilful so they involve in fewer accidents. Thus bring up the speed limits dose not increase safety, neither.

I guess B is a better choice than C, after this analysis. But I really appreciate someone who can address my concern for answer choice (B).