PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 7
Transportation official: I reject the claim that the(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ALarge trucks are(10 more words not shown)
- BThe number of(21 more words not shown)
- CMost of the(25 more words not shown)
- DSome cities with(16 more words not shown)
- EMost places that(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The comparison gives the official a real reason to suspect studded snow tires. Other places have comparable snowfall and just as much large-truck traffic. Yet similar ruts appear only in the places that permit the tires. That makes trucks alone a less satisfying explanation: why don't the otherwise comparable places with trucks also have these ruts?
Still, a pattern isn't proof. Perhaps another difference between the places explains the road damage. The argument becomes stronger as we rule out those competing explanations or find a way the tires themselves could damage the road.
What we’re looking for
That's what I'd want from a strengthener. Maybe it explains how the studs damage the surface. Maybe it makes the comparison cleaner by separating the tire issue from the truck issue. Either route could give us a better reason to blame the tires.
Working the answers
- A
A rule against putting studded tires on large trucks doesn't tell us what actually causes the ruts. Other vehicles might use the tires, and large trucks might damage roads without them. We need evidence about the effect on roads, not just which vehicles are allowed to use which equipment.
- B
This points toward the explanation the official rejects. As truck traffic falls, the number of ruts falls too. That gives us a reason to consider trucks as a cause. It doesn't prove trucks caused the damage, but its direction is unhelpful to someone trying to blame the tires instead.
- CCorrect
Here we have the tire policy without much truck traffic, and the roads still have similar ruts. That makes it harder to explain the pattern by blaming large trucks. The official already compared places with substantial truck traffic; C adds places where trucks are largely absent and the proposed tire-related pattern remains. It adds evidence for the tire explanation without pretending to prove it beyond doubt.
- D
These cities have more trucks and also have ruts, but do they allow studded snow tires? We aren't told. If they do, either proposed cause could still explain the damage. This doesn't separate the possibilities. A few more places with trucks and ruts don't by themselves make the official's tire explanation stronger.
- E
Why do these places prohibit studded tires? Perhaps because of road damage, but perhaps for some other reason, such as concerns about driving safety where there is little snow. Those are possibilities, not facts supplied by E. Without evidence connecting the prohibition to the damage, we can't use the rule as proof that tires caused the ruts.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.