PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 18
Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AIf a vehicle(27 more words not shown)
- BA bus company(32 more words not shown)
- CWhenever a bus(18 more words not shown)
- DA company that(23 more words not shown)
- EWhen a bus(30 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The garbage truck was speeding. That doesn't immediately clear the bus driver of every possible contribution to the accident.
At first, I'd want to know whether the bus driver also broke a rule. The passage answers that: the police report confirms that the bus driver obeyed all traffic regulations. Accept it. We shouldn't invent a red-light violation after being told there wasn't one.
Still, the driver admits a quicker reaction might have prevented the collision. Could the company expect its drivers to avoid accidents even when someone else breaks the traffic rules? Following the rules and meeting the company's expectations aren't automatically the same thing.
What we’re looking for
That is where the requested principle can help. The conclusion is that the company should not reprimand this driver. Give us a rule connecting the established compliance with that result: if the accident didn't result from the bus driver violating a traffic regulation, the company should not reprimand the driver.
Working the answers
- A
This assigns sole responsibility to the driver who violated a regulation. But the conclusion concerns the company's decision to reprimand its employee. We'd still need a connection between that assignment of responsibility and the company's disciplinary rule. The company might expect a quicker response even when it regards the other driver as responsible.
- B
This is tempting because it mentions both the police report and no reprimand. But what did the report confirm? That the bus driver complied with traffic regulations, not that the accident was completely the other driver's fault. B requires the second finding, which we haven't been given. Matching the familiar words isn't enough if the rule's condition differs.
- C
This requires a bus driver's traffic violation to have caused the collision. Our driver obeyed the regulations, so this rule doesn't apply. A rule requiring reprimands for some drivers doesn't settle whether a compliant driver should be reprimanded.
- D
We don't know whether the driver reasonably could have been expected to avoid the collision. The admission that a quicker reaction might have helped doesn't resolve what a reasonable expectation would be. D leaves that question open, so it doesn't establish that this driver qualifies for protection from a reprimand.
- ECorrect
This uses exactly the condition we can establish. The bus driver violated no traffic regulation, so the collision did not result from such a violation. Under E's principle, the company should not reprimand the driver. Unlike B, it doesn't require a police finding that the other driver bore all the fault.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.