PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 18
In order to determine automobile insurance premiums for(71 more words not shown)
The claim that insurance premiums(21 more words not shown)
- Aa premise of(2 more words not shown)
- Bthe conclusion of(2 more words not shown)
- Cevidence offered in(6 more words not shown)
- Dan assertion phrased(5 more words not shown)
- Ea clarification of(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If a person drives more often, the person has more occasions to be involved in an accident. That makes the recommendation understandable: the author wants insurers to account for driving frequency along with the risk factors they already consider.
I'd still ask how insurers would obtain reliable information about how often someone drives. Would they ask the driver, or measure it another way? That concern is about carrying out the proposal. The question asks a different thing: what role does the proposal play in the argument?
What we’re looking for
The opening describes how premiums currently reflect risk, including age and accident history. The author then recommends adding frequency, and the last sentence gives the reason for that recommendation. So the claim that premiums should rise with driving frequency is the point being supported.
Working the answers
- A
A premise is a reason offered for the point. Here, the greater chance of a mishap supplies the reason, and increasing premiums with frequency is the recommendation that reason supports. A puts the two roles in the wrong order.
- BCorrect
This is the conclusion. The author wants us to accept that premiums should increase with driving frequency. Existing risk-based pricing provides the background, and the final claim about chances of mishaps supports extending that approach to frequency.
- C
The recommendation isn't offered to establish an earlier premise about age, accident history or risk-based pricing. Instead, the argument uses the background and the final risk claim to support the recommendation. Calling it evidence for a premise reverses its role.
- D
The claim doesn't answer an anticipated objection. It states what the author thinks insurers should do. The following sentence then supports that proposal. Nothing in the wording turns the proposal itself into a response that heads off a criticism.
- E
The claim doesn't define 'premium,' 'risk' or 'frequency.' It recommends how one factor should affect what a driver pays. That is a proposed policy, not clarification of a term.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.