PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 23
Robert: Speed limits on residential streets in Crownsbury(72 more words not shown)
Sheila's response depends on the(2 more words not shown)
- Aproblems of the(14 more words not shown)
- BRobert's proposal is(15 more words not shown)
- Cwith speed bumps(19 more words not shown)
- Dmost of the(21 more words not shown)
- Eproblems of the(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the drivers slow down?
Robert's proposal includes both speed bumps and signs warning drivers about them. Sheila says a driver going too fast could lose control on a bump. That sounds like a real concern if people keep speeding—but what happens if the bumps and warnings do exactly what Robert hopes?
My initial questions about the proposal might include whether it would work or make everyone's trip slower. Sheila's particular objection depends on the first issue. Her warning about losing control at high speed needs some drivers still to be going too fast when they reach the bumps. If everyone slows to a safe speed, that warning no longer gives us a reason to reject the plan.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption Sheila requires. I'd predict that the proposed changes won't get everyone to slow down safely. We don't need to prove the whole proposal is a failure; we need the condition that lets her stated concern apply after the bumps and signs are installed.
Working the answers
- A
Sheila doesn't compare Crownsbury with other cities. Speeding could be a problem here even if it were worse somewhere else, and she could still object to a proposed remedy. A comparison across cities isn't needed for her concern about losing control.
- B
Both speakers are addressing the danger from speeding drivers. Sheila thinks Robert's proposed solution introduces a problem; she doesn't need to misunderstand what he wants to accomplish. B adds a disagreement about his intention that her reasoning doesn't require.
- CCorrect
Some drivers must still fail to slow to a safe speed with the bumps and warning signs in place. Those are the drivers who could encounter the danger Sheila describes.
To check it, imagine the opposite: every driver slows to a safe speed. Then saying that someone going too fast can lose control on a speed bump wouldn't establish a drawback of this proposal, because that condition wouldn't occur. C is required for her objection. It doesn't prove that the bumps would make the streets worse overall; it keeps her particular reason for opposing them relevant.
- D
Sheila doesn't need most affected people to be harmed. The possibility that some speeding drivers would lose control could motivate her objection even if many other people benefited. D adds a majority claim that her argument hasn't made and doesn't need.
- E
The proposal concerns residential streets. Similar speeding problems could occur on nonresidential streets too without changing Sheila's concern about installing bumps in these neighborhoods. She doesn't need this problem to be exclusive to residential streets.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.