PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 12
After the rush-hour speed limit on the British(30 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AAfter the decrease(24 more words not shown)
- BTravel times during(15 more words not shown)
- CBefore the rush-hour(22 more words not shown)
- DEnforcement of speed(17 more words not shown)
- EThe number of(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A lower speed limit made the commute faster. How could that happen?
Maybe drivers switched to the train or bus because they didn't want the slower drive. Fewer cars could mean less congestion. Or perhaps traffic moved more smoothly: driving steadily at a lower speed might get people home sooner than alternating between fast driving and long stretches of sitting still.
What we’re looking for
Those are possible explanations to look for. The question gives us the shorter travel times as a fact, so we aren't trying to deny them. We need something about the change that explains why the lower limit could reduce the total time spent on the road.
Working the answers
- A
This compares rush hour with other times of day after the change. Our puzzle compares rush hour before the change with rush hour after it. Rush-hour traffic could still be slower than midday traffic while becoming faster than it used to be. A doesn't explain that improvement.
- B
Travel times outside rush hour aren't the result we're trying to explain. Those times could remain unchanged for many reasons while rush-hour times rose or fell. We need a connection to the improvement during the hours affected by the new limit.
- CCorrect
High-speed driving frequently caused accidents, and those accidents created lengthy delays. Lowering speeds could reduce those crashes and the traffic jams they produce.
Think about the whole trip, not just the speed while the car is moving. A faster stretch of driving doesn't help if it ends in a long wait behind a crash. Reducing that lost time could more than make up for driving at a lower maximum speed. C supplies a specific reason for smoother travel, which is what the shorter commute needs. It doesn't require every accident to disappear.
- D
Consistent enforcement helps us take both limits seriously, but it doesn't explain why driving under the lower one would make trips faster. The missing explanation concerns what changed in traffic conditions when the limit fell, such as fewer delays caused by crashes.
- E
“Did not increase” leaves two possibilities: the number of drivers stayed the same or decreased. A substantial decrease could help the fewer-cars prediction, but E doesn't establish that decrease. If just as many people kept driving, the puzzle would remain. C gives us an actual reason the speed change could reduce delays.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.