PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 16
Motorcoach driver: Professional drivers spend much more time(88 more words not shown)
The point at issue between(9 more words not shown)
- Ait would be(9 more words not shown)
- Bprofessional drivers will(11 more words not shown)
- Creducing the speed(13 more words not shown)
- Dprofessional drivers are(9 more words not shown)
- Eall drivers wish(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More time behind the wheel might make professional drivers more competent. But why would that mean a lower speed limit forces them to break the law?
Why could they not slow down?
Maybe the driver has some reason in mind, such as needing to keep up with traffic. But the argument does not establish that obeying the lower limit would be impossible. It jumps from the drivers' competence to the claim that the law would force some of them to violate it.
The police officer challenges that jump. In the officer's view, drivers could obey the new limit if they chose to. If they sped, the lower limit would not have forced them to do it.
What we’re looking for
We need the point of disagreement. Focus on the cause of the illegal behavior: would reducing the limit cause some professional drivers to break the law, or would breaking it remain their choice?
Working the answers
- A
The driver opposes reducing the limit, so we know the driver's position. The officer does not tell us whether a lower limit would be desirable. The officer only disputes one argument against it. Someone could reject the driver's reasoning and still oppose the policy for another reason.
- B
Being able to obey is different from actually obeying. The officer says drivers can comply if they wish; that does not predict what they will do. We cannot turn the officer's statement about their ability into agreement that professional drivers will obey the new limit.
- CCorrect
The driver says reducing the limit would force some currently law-abiding professional drivers to break the law. That makes the reduction a cause of their illegal behavior.
The officer denies that connection. Drivers could choose to obey, so, according to the officer, the reduction would not cause them to act illegally. Both speakers address this exact relationship and take opposite positions.
- D
The driver says professional drivers are more competent than other drivers. The officer does not challenge that claim. Professional drivers could be more competent and still be capable of choosing whether to obey a lower limit. We have only one speaker's position on their relative competence.
- E
The officer says all drivers can obey if they wish. That conditional statement does not say that all drivers actually wish to obey. The driver does not make that claim about everyone's wishes either, so this is not an established disagreement.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.