PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 1
Commentator: In last week's wreck involving one of(94 more words not shown)
The point that Acme Engines(16 more words not shown)
- Aproof that the(10 more words not shown)
- Ba reason for(16 more words not shown)
- Can explanation of(5 more words not shown)
- Devidence that knee-level(6 more words not shown)
- Ean indication that(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Moving the switch sounds like a sensible way to prevent a knee from accidentally shutting down the train. But why did Acme move it? That question matters because Acme says it never realized the old location was dangerous.
Acme's explanation is that engineers found the switches inconvenient. The commentator doesn't buy it: would the company really spend $500,000 just to fix an inconvenience? The commentator treats that expense as a sign that Acme understood there was a more serious problem. That challenges the company's claim that it was unaware of the danger.
Does awareness of a dangerous switch automatically settle who is legally responsible for the wreck? Not by itself. We haven't been given a rule that resolves liability, and the engineer's own actions might matter too. Still, we can understand what the commentator is trying to establish without agreeing that the case is complete.
What we’re looking for
The question asks what the spending detail does in that argument. Start with the final claim: Acme should be held liable. The expense supports that claim by suggesting Acme knew about the danger before the wreck. It is evidence of the company's awareness, not the final conclusion and not an explanation of how the engineer lost control.
Working the answers
- A
The commentator is building a case against Acme, not proving the engineer blameless. Even if the company knew the switch was dangerous, that would not establish that the engineer bore no responsibility at all. Those are separate questions.
- B
This points the wrong way. Relocating the old train's switch might have prevented the engineer's knee from hitting it. The spending detail isn't offered to show that remodeling would have made no difference; it's offered to show what Acme understood about the existing design.
- C
The engineer's knee hitting the shut-down switch explains the immediate sequence leading to the wreck. The $500,000 expense has a different job: it makes Acme's claim of ignorance less believable. Explaining the accident and supporting an inference about the company's knowledge are different roles.
- D
Spending money to move the switches is being used to suggest that Acme recognized a hazard. D says the switches weren't hazardous, which is the opposite of the point the commentator is trying to make.
- ECorrect
The commentator takes the expensive relocation as evidence that Acme already understood the danger. If mere inconvenience wasn't a plausible reason to spend that much, awareness of a safety problem becomes a more plausible explanation. That is how the detail challenges Acme's defense and supports the demand to hold it liable.
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.