LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 24

June 2002

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

Target time: 0:25

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
PT113 S4 Q24	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Net Effect +NetEff	A 1% 148 B 94% 160 C 2% 150 D 1% 151 E 3% 154	126 136 145	+Easier	145.144 +SubsectionEasier

Robert: Speed limits on residential streets in Crownsbury are routinely ignored by drivers. People crossing those streets are endangered by speeding drivers, yet the city does not have enough police officers to patrol every street. So the city should install speed bumps and signs warning of their presence on residential streets to slow down traffic.

Sheila: That is a bad idea. People who are driving too fast can easily lose control of their vehicles when they hit a speed bump.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

In response to Robert’s claim that the city of Crownsbury should install speed bumps on streets to slow down speeding drivers, Sheila concludes that this approach is a bad idea. To support her claim, Sheila points out that speeding drivers can easily lose control when hitting a speed bump.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Sheila counters the position held by Robert. She does this by showing Robert’s solution to a given problem could produce undesirable consequences.

raises the objection that the problem with which Robert is concerned may not be as serious as he takes it to be

Sheila does not deny the seriousness of the problem Robert is addressing. Instead, she is showing that Robert’s solution could create more problems.

argues that the solution Robert advocates is likely to have undesirable side effects of its own

The solution Robert advocates for is installing speed bumps on certain streets. The undesirable effect Sheila points out is speeding drivers losing control of their vehicles when driving over speed bumps.

defends an alternative course of action as more desirable than the one advocated by Robert

Sheila does not defend a solution different from the one Robert proposes. She only addresses Robert’s proposed solution and argues that his solution also has the potential to be dangerous.

concedes that the solution advocated by Robert would be effective, but insists that the reasons for this are not those given by Robert

Sheila does not concede that Robert’s solution would be effective. In fact, it is implied she thinks Robert’s solution would be ineffective if speeding drivers were to hit speed bumps.

charges that Robert’s proposal would have no net effect on the problem he describes

Sheila does not claim that Robert’s proposal would have no effect on the problem. In fact, she thinks Robert’s proposal would have an adverse effect on the problem.

LSAT 113 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 113 - Section 4 - Question 24

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel