PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 14
Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises.(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APeople who have(14 more words not shown)
- BMost air pollution(14 more words not shown)
- CMost people who(15 more words not shown)
- DDuring a recession,(24 more words not shown)
- EDuring a recession,(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not driving to work doesn't mean not driving.
Charles expects rising unemployment to reduce commuting, reduce car use, and therefore reduce automobile pollution. I can follow that story, but a missing commute could be replaced by another trip. Someone might drive across the country, visit friends, or travel to national parks. If that extra driving replaced all the commuting that disappeared, Charles couldn't use fewer commutes to establish less car use.
Darla has her own objection: people may keep older, more polluting cars during a recession. That's worth considering, but this question asks for an assumption in Charles's argument. We should examine the steps he relies on rather than assume our answer must repeat Darla's point.
What we’re looking for
I'd return to the gap between less commuting and less driving. Charles needs the lost commuting not to be offset by extra driving for other reasons. Some recreational driving can still happen. The problem arises if the added driving wipes out the decrease that his argument depends on.
Working the answers
- A
Charles doesn't need people who have never had jobs to maintain their usual driving. If those people drove less during a recession, that could make an overall decline in car use easier to establish. The argument relies on a net decrease, not on keeping this particular group's driving unchanged or higher.
- B
Automobile exhaust from commuters doesn't have to cause most air pollution. It could account for a small share, and a reduction in that source would still be a reduction in pollution from that source. Charles specifically concludes that pollution due to automobile exhaust decreases. He doesn't compare it with factory emissions or establish what causes most pollution overall.
- C
Most workers could use public transportation while a minority commuted by car. Suppose 70 percent took transit and 30 percent drove. Fewer members of the driving group commuting could still reduce car use. Charles doesn't need the car commuters to be a majority of all workers.
- DCorrect
The reduced commuting must not be offset by increased car use for other reasons. This protects the exact step we questioned. If people replaced the lost work trips with enough other driving, fewer commutes would no longer establish the reduction in car use that supports Charles's conclusion.
D does not ban all other driving or require every laid-off person to stay home. It rules out enough additional driving to cancel the decrease.
- E
Car commuters do not have to lose their jobs at a higher rate than other commuters. Equal layoff rates could still mean fewer people driving to work. The argument needs the relevant decline in car use, not a comparison showing that drivers are especially likely to be laid off.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.