LSAT 109 – Section 4 – Question 13

LSAT 109 - Section 4 - Question 13

December 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:26

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT109 S4 Q13
+LR
+Exp
Sufficient assumption +SA
Link Assumption +LinkA
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
14%
162
B
11%
159
C
12%
165
D
62%
168
E
1%
163
150
161
171
 +Hardest 150.49 +SubsectionHarder

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.

Summary
The author concludes that the bill should be adopted. This is because the bill would deter people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving.

Missing Connection
We don’t have any premise that tells us when a bill should be adopted. So we want to get from what we learn in the existing premise — that the bill deters people from doing something that poses a threat to safe driving — to the idea that a bill should be adopted.

A
The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(A) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.
B
The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(B) establishes that SOME KIND of legislation is required in order to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones. But it doesn’t establish that THE SPECIFIC BILL referenced in the conclusion SHOULD be adopted. Just because legislation is required doesn’t mean THIS bill is required. And even if this bill were required, we still wouldn’t know that it SHOULD be adopted, because we don’t know that reducing threats to public safety are things that we should do.
C
Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(C) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion. (Don’t pick this answer just because you think it’s supported by the stimulus. This is not a Must Be True or Most Strongly Supported question.)
D
Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(D) establishes that if a proposed law (bill) would reduce a threat to public safety, then it should be adopted. We know from the premises that the bill referenced in the conclusion reduces a threat to public safety because it deters people from doing something that poses a threat (using car phones while driving). Based on (D) this bill should be adopted.
E
Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.
(E) doesn’t establish when a bill should be adopted. So it can’t establish the conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply