PrepTest 131, Section 1, Question 2
We already knew from thorough investigation that immediately(78 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- Awhether the second(7 more words not shown)
- Bwhether the driver(12 more words not shown)
- Cwhether any other(6 more words not shown)
- Dwhether the driver(8 more words not shown)
- Ewhether the driver(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Knowing who did something wrong is not necessarily the same as knowing who did nothing wrong.
The investigation establishes that at least one of two things happened: the first driver changed lanes without signaling, or the second driver was speeding. Either action would make the driver responsible for the accident. We then establish the first driver's lane change without a signal, so we have a basis for holding that driver liable.
But why does that clear the second driver? Both things could have happened. The first driver could have moved over without signaling while the second driver was speeding toward the same spot. The word “or” does not tell us that only one of these drivers could have acted improperly.
What we’re looking for
We should also be careful about the breadth of “not liable.” Speeding is one stated basis for liability, but the passage does not say it is the only possible basis. Even a driver who was not speeding might have done something else wrong, such as driving drunk. To evaluate the conclusion, we want information that helps us assess the second driver's responsibility, rather than more information about the first driver's wrongdoing.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If the second vehicle was speeding, the passage's own rule makes that driver liable. That directly defeats the conclusion that the driver is not liable. If the vehicle was not speeding, this particular reason for assigning liability disappears. Those different answers change our assessment of the conclusion, which makes this an important question to ask.
A “no” answer would not establish that the second driver was blameless in every respect. We do not need it to. The useful contrast is that a “yes” answer establishes liability under the stated rule, while a “no” answer does not.
- B
The passage makes changing lanes without signaling a basis for liability; it does not add a requirement that the driver know the signal is off. More importantly, the first driver's awareness would not tell us whether the second driver was speeding or otherwise liable.
- C
Other vehicles could have been involved whether or not the second driver was liable. Adding a third or fourth driver does not resolve the question about this driver's conduct. We need a fact connecting the second driver to responsibility for the accident.
- D
The argument presents the first driver's lane change as part of the established account. More generally questioning that driver's reliability does not address the central gap: even accepting that the first driver changed lanes without signaling, the second driver could also have been speeding. A directly tests that possibility.
- E
The turn signal was not flashing. What the second driver would have seen in a different situation does not determine whether that driver was speeding in the actual situation. The stated rule connects liability to the driver's conduct, not to this hypothetical visibility of a signal.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.