LR Drill Set 14, Question 9
Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AMost households whose(11 more words not shown)
- BThere are more(11 more words not shown)
- CEven large automobiles(10 more words not shown)
- DMost high-speed highways(9 more words not shown)
- ESome automobile manufacturers(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Making two kinds of cars doesn't mean people will have both kinds available.
I see the proposed compromise. Use the lighter, fuel-efficient vehicle for local trips and the heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance driving. If most driving is local, that could let people save fuel while keeping the heavier vehicle for the high-speed trips where the lighter one is less safe.
But what happens to someone who owns only the lighter car and needs to take a highway trip? Producing a heavier option doesn't put that option in the person's driveway. The plan seems to depend on drivers being able to switch vehicles to suit the trip.
I also want to ask about local safety. The passage identifies a safety disadvantage on high-speed highways, but it doesn't establish that the lighter vehicles are equally safe on local roads. A trip to the grocery store could involve a collision too. We shouldn't invent a safety disadvantage there, but we also shouldn't assume local driving eliminates every safety concern.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the argument. An answer could address either concern: whether people have access to both kinds of vehicles, or whether using the lighter cars locally preserves safety. We don't need an answer that solves every problem. Making one important part of the proposed arrangement more plausible would help.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Most households that do long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles. That makes it more plausible that the households needing a highway vehicle can also have a separate vehicle for local trips. It addresses our concern that people will be stuck using their only car for every kind of driving.
Be precise about what A establishes. It says most households, not all, and two vehicles, not necessarily one lighter and one heavier vehicle. We still don't know exactly what they own or how they use it. But the availability of multiple vehicles supports the possibility of the proposed division of use. This is helpful evidence, not complete proof of the conclusion.
- B
More cars on high-speed highways doesn't show that drivers use the heavier vehicles there. The additional cars could be lighter ones. A change in highway traffic volume doesn't establish that the proposed division between local and long-distance vehicles works.
- C
Lighter large cars might sound relevant to fuel economy. But C doesn't establish that people use the appropriate vehicle for each trip or that safety was preserved. The conclusion claims fuel savings with no loss in safety; reducing the weight of large cars doesn't resolve that concern.
- D
Sharing highways with commercial vehicles doesn't show that passenger vehicles maintain their safety or that households can switch vehicles. We need support for this two-vehicle arrangement, not just a description of who uses highways.
- E
Beginning prototype work earlier doesn't tell us whether the resulting vehicles solve the problem. A design can have a long history and still involve the same fuel-efficiency and safety tradeoff.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.