Very Tricky LR Question ! Forum

[Philipsssssss]

Test # 23

Section 3


Question # 9 and # 10

Damn

[ellebee]

got 9 just fine.

but why is 10, B? i thought all choices were a bit weak, so I kind of just gambled.

[Philipsssssss]

I got a severe brain furt on both.

Here is an explanation for both:

9. (E)
The author’s conclusion appears in the second sentence, indicated by the classic Keyword
“Therefore”: If people walk rather than drive whenever possible, there will be less
pollution. The central assumption the author makes is that people can substitute walking
for driving. If it is not possible for any current drivers to walk—for instance, if the distance
that all current drivers travel is too great—then people can’t substitute walking for driving.
And if they must drive, then pollution won’t decrease. (E) provides this necessary
assumption—that there are people who now drive who could walk. Without this
possibility, the argument falls flat.

(A) The argument’s scope is limited to one way of reducing pollution—walking. Thus, an
answer choice, such as (A), that mentions other ways of reducing pollution is likely to be
wrong. And in fact, there need not be other ways to reduce pollution (i.e., cutting factory
emissions) in order for this argument to work, so (A) is not a necessary assumption here.
(B) Public transportation is outside the scope. Whether people take public transportation
or not is irrelevant to the argument, because even if people could take public
transportation, it would still be possible to reduce pollution by walking instead of driving.
(C) The argument states that we can reduce pollution by walking instead of driving. In
order for this claim to hold up, it need not be the case that walking is the only alternative to
driving that will reduce pollution. The argument is still valid even if there are other
substitutions for driving that will reduce pollution.
(D) People who never drive are outside the scope; after all, they aren’t the ones responsible
for pollution. The author is concerned with having current drivers walk. It need not be true
that there are non-drivers who walk; the only thing this argument relies on is that there are
people who drive now who could instead walk.

• Not every sentence will contribute something new to an argument. Here, the same
basic idea appears in both the first and second sentences.
• Pay careful attention to the scope of the argument in Assumption questions. In order
for something to be necessary to an argument, it must be, in the first place, relevant.
Here, public transportation (B) and full-time non-drivers (D) are irrelevant, and so
these choices cannot contain the assumption we seek.


10. (B)
To strengthen this argument we need to bolster the contention that if people walk rather
than drive pollution will be greatly reduced. Process of elimination is your best strategy as
it is difficult to pre-phrase an answer here. Only (B) helps support the argument. (B) tells
us that even non-moving cars pollute (albeit at a lower rate), and that when there is a lot of
congestion, there are more non-moving vehicles. (B), if true, means that not only will we
reduce pollution from moving vehicles by having drivers walk, we will also reduce
pollution from non-moving vehicles. Less congestion means fewer non-moving vehicles,
which in turn means less pollution.
(A) merely states the obvious: If passengers get out and hoof it, the number of cars on the
road won’t change. This has no effect on the argument, which concerns what will happen if
drivers leave their cars at home.
(C) talks about the relative contributions to pollution reduction of different people who
opt to walk rather than drive. By discussing relative rates of reduction, (C) already assumes
that walking instead of driving reduces pollution, rather than providing support for the
argument that this is the case.

(D) compares the pollution rates of buses and cars, relative to the number of people each
carries. An interesting topic, perhaps, but irrelevant to this argument. Whether buses or
cars are more pollution efficient doesn’t provide support for the argument that having car
drivers walk will reduce pollution.
(E), if true, suggests that the net number of cars on the road may not decline even if current
drivers indeed walk, which tends to weaken rather than strengthen the argument.

[Philipsssssss]

I honestly find B in # 10 making a bit of sense but it is so VAGUE !

[WestOfTheRest]

10 is B because, the more people who walk, the less congestion there will be. The less congestion, the less pollution from nonmoving vehicles.

This is a very weak answer, however, I agree that it is the strongest choice.

[Philipsssssss]

Another reason why one needs to learn to think like those testdemagogs

[ellebee]

I understand now. Thanks for the explanations.

I still hate #10 though...

[lsatnotes.com]

Should we not give Kaplan Answer guide the credit when the explanations are posted from there verbatim?

[Philipsssssss]

Its obvious i didn't write this in a matter of 1 minute anyways when replying.

But your right neverless.