PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 2
Policy analyst: Those concerned with safeguarding public health(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- APublic health can(6 more words not shown)
- BThose concerned with(11 more words not shown)
- CIncreasing seat belt(12 more words not shown)
- DA reduction in(16 more words not shown)
- ETraveling by car(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Safer cars sound useful. So does getting distracted drivers to pay attention. What is the analyst saying those efforts miss?
Less driving. If people spend less time traveling on the roads, they have less exposure to the risk the analyst identifies. That gives the proposal an understandable basis. But how feasible is it to get people to drive fewer miles? People may still need to get to work, school, or other places. Recognizing a possible benefit doesn't settle how easily we can obtain it.
What we’re looking for
The question isn't asking us to solve that practical problem. It asks for the overall conclusion. The analyst's main claim is comparative: reducing total miles traveled would do more to safeguard public health than the automotive safety measures people usually focus on. The final observation about driving being risky is the reason offered for that claim.
Working the answers
- A
Reducing traffic fatalities is the public-health goal that frames the discussion. The analyst goes further and identifies what would contribute most to it. A leaves out the comparison between reducing driving and improving automotive safety.
- B
These people are already trying to reduce traffic fatalities. The analyst isn't urging them to adopt that goal for the first time. The point concerns which approach would best serve it: fewer total miles rather than focusing only on making the driving safer.
- C
These are the familiar measures introduced at the beginning. They can be worthwhile without being what the analyst considers most effective. C repeats the existing approach and misses the claim that reducing total travel would contribute more.
- DCorrect
This captures the claimed comparison: fewer total miles would contribute more than any automotive safety measure. That is what the analyst wants us to believe, supported by the fact that driving itself creates risk.
Notice that reducing travel isn't the same as eliminating every car trip. Nor does the argument have to claim seat belts are useless. The conclusion ranks the contribution of these approaches; D preserves that ranking.
- E
This is the reason given in the final sentence. Why does the analyst favor reducing total miles? Because traveling by car is itself a major risk factor. E supports the comparative conclusion without stating it. A sentence can be true and important to the argument while still serving as evidence rather than its overall point.
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.