LSAT Exam Prepare Questions - Test 1, Section 4

[pqthinh2000]

The government should enact a bill that would prohibit the sale and consumption of alcohol on commuter trains. Recently, the state, exercising its legitimate authority, passed a law to protect the health of commuters by prohibiting smoking on the commuter line. When intoxicated riders get off the train, get in their cars, and drive, the public is exposed to at least as much danger as are nonsmoking rail passengers who are forced to inhale cigarette smoke.
In arguing that alcohol consumption on commuter trains should be banned, the author relies on

A. the fact that drinking alcohol is dangerous to one’s health
B. the principle that people need to be protected from their own actions
C. the use of emotionally charged descriptions of smoking and drinking alcohol
D. the reader’s sympathy for the problems of commuters
E. a comparison between the effects of smoking and the effects of drinking alcohol

Link: http://www.quizlib.net/PlayingPublicTest.aspx?quizid=81

[christine.defenbaugh]

Thanks for posting, pqthinh2000!

Unfortunately, it looks like the question you're working on is not a real LSAT question. I have to advise very strongly against using non-LSAC questions to study and prepare for the LSAT.

Fake LSAT questions are extremely poor substitutes for actual, released official LSATs. They are often written poorly, sometimes egregiously so. Occasionally they are actually just blatantly incorrect. In the very best of cases, they are typically just un-LSAT-like in tone and style. Official LSATs are available from a variety of licensed sellers, including the LSAC itself.

There are zero good reasons to practice with fake LSAT questions, and many reasons not to.

All that being said, here is a rough breakdown of how to tackle this type of question. The question is asking us what the author relies on in making his argument. At a glance, this might sound like an assumption question, but it turns out to be an Analyze the Argument Structure question.

First stop, the core:

PREMISE: 1)We banned smoking on commuter trains because it harmed others
2) Alcohol on commuter trains poses just as much danger to others as smoking
CONCLUSION: We should ban alcohol on commuter trains

Only (E) matches what's happening in this argument. Premise #2 is a comparison between the effect of smoking and the effects of alcohol - i.e., a comparison of the danger to others.

The incorrect answers
(A) The author never says, implies, or assumes that alcohol is dangerous to the drinker's health. The point is that it's dangerous to other people.
(B) The proposed law isn't based on protecting people from their own drinking, but rather, protecting people from OTHER people's drinking.
(C) "emotionally charged descriptions" is awfully hard to define, but nothing in this argument comes close to qualifying.
(D) I'm not sure how we would have any idea that the author was relying on our sympathy unless he came right out and said "don't you feel sorry for these commuters!?" Also, the dangers of drunk drivers affect everyone, not just the commuters.


While I hope this helped you break through on this particular question, I strongly recommend that you immediately stop working on non-LSAT questions, and obtain some official material.