PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 12
Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit(75 more words not shown)
If the editorialist's statements are(12 more words not shown)
- ADrivers with a(19 more words not shown)
- BDriver re-education offers(15 more words not shown)
- CDriver re-education is(23 more words not shown)
- DDriver re-education should(12 more words not shown)
- EDrivers with a(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The editorialist gives these drivers two options: jail or driver re-education. Before going further, notice who “these drivers” are. They have both a large number of demerit points and a conviction for a serious driving-related offense. Having only one of those features doesn't put someone in this group.
I'm not convinced those are the only possible punishments. What about taking away a license? That would seem worth considering. But the question asks what the editorialist's statements support, so we need to work within the options the passage gives us.
Re-education is recommended only if it's likely to make these drivers more responsible. Then we're told that making drivers with many demerit points more responsible is always almost impossible. That makes re-education hard to recommend on the author's own rule. If that option isn't appropriate, jail is the remaining option.
What we’re looking for
My prediction is that the drivers who meet both conditions should go to jail. “Almost impossible” doesn't mean literally impossible; a rare success could still occur. But the rule requires improvement to be likely. A remote chance doesn't meet that requirement.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This keeps both defining conditions and gives the remaining recommendation: jail. The editorialist requires either jail or re-education, allows re-education only when improvement is likely, and describes improvement for drivers with many points as almost impossible. Those claims support sending the specified drivers to jail. We needn't endorse that policy ourselves to follow the reasoning.
- B
Nothing ranks re-education against other ways to make these drivers responsible. It could be the best available chance and still be a very poor chance. The passage's rule concerns whether improvement is likely, not which option comes closest to an unlikely success.
- C
Harshness isn't the stated objection to re-education. The editorialist objects when it is unlikely to make the driver more responsible. A punishment could be harsh and still fail to change someone's driving, or be mild and succeed. C substitutes a different basis for choosing between the options.
- D
The rule addresses drivers who have many demerit points and a serious conviction. It does not tell us what to recommend for someone without a serious offense. Re-education might be useful for those drivers; the passage doesn't settle that question.
- E
This group has many points but lacks the serious conviction. The original either-jail-or-re-education recommendation therefore doesn't apply to them as stated. We can't drop one of the conditions and transfer a recommendation to the resulting group. Nor has re-education been shown likely to help them.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.