PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 1
In constructing a self-driving robotic car, engineers face(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(5 more words not shown)
- Aconstructing a self-driving(7 more words not shown)
- Bthe best drivers(10 more words not shown)
- Cit is always(18 more words not shown)
- Dstudying the principles(20 more words not shown)
- Ea self-driving robotic(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the fish have something to teach the engineers.
A self-driving car needs to handle more than an empty road. It has to avoid collisions and get through congestion when other vehicles crowd together. Fish swimming in a school face a similar coordination problem: they can collide or get in one another's way. But we're told their navigational principles make those problems much less common than they are among cars.
What we’re looking for
To complete the argument, I'd follow that possibility. If the engineers can understand how fish coordinate their movements, perhaps they can adapt some of those principles to their cars. The passage hasn't shown that the transfer will work perfectly; it has identified a promising comparison.
Working the answers
- A
A possible source of useful ideas isn't a required area of expertise. Engineers might solve the problem through another approach without becoming experts in fish biology. Nothing here makes fish research the only route to a successful design.
- B
We aren't told how the best human drivers navigate. They might use principles similar to the fish's, or they might do something else. The evidence concerns how fish avoid problems, not what methods distinguish excellent drivers from other drivers.
- C
One promising comparison doesn't show that engineers should always turn to nature for every design challenge. Nature might offer useful guidance for this traffic problem while offering little for another problem. C expands the recommendation far beyond the example.
- DCorrect
The fish's principles help avoid the kinds of problems the engineers need to solve. Studying those principles could therefore give the engineers useful ideas. The modest 'could help' fits the evidence: we have a reason to investigate the approach without a guarantee that it will produce a successful car.
- E
Fish experiencing fewer problems doesn't establish that a car using their principles would outperform a human-driven car. The principles might be hard to adapt to roads, or might help without improving on human performance. E turns a promising design idea into an assured comparative result. D stops at the possibility the analogy supports.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.