Q25 - Gas station owner: Increased fuel

[aap]

I had difficulties in discerning between answer choice A and B. The credited answer is B, according to the book, but I could easily see A.

Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency reduces air pollution and dependence on imported oil, which has led some people to suggest that automobile manufacturers should make cars smaller to increase their fuel efficiency. But smaller cars are more likely to be seriously damaged in collisions and provide less protection for their occupants. Greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives; therefore, manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency.

The reasoning in the gas station owner's argument is flawed because the argument

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars. (a plausible option, although it suffers from a degree issue, e.g. "impossible", left for later.)

(B) concludes, on the basis of the claim that one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end should not be pursued. (another plausible option, and the credited answer, yet again suffers from a degree issue similar to (A), e.g. "unacceptable", left for later)

(C) draws a conclusion about what should be done from premises all of which are about actual matters only. (A mix of facts, suggestions, and likely possibilities, nixed this one)

(D) presupposes the truth of what it sets out to prove. (this is not a circular argument, nixed this one)

(E) presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution. (air pollution was one of two concerns in the background material, nixed this one)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I love your process of elimination. The process and the mental steps are exactly what you should be doing. I'm a bit nervous about the possibly overhanded use of "qualifiers." "Qualifiers" are words that the LSAT takes advantage of in order to create answer choices that are too strong or too weak and thereby wrong. But that doesn't mean that every time you see a word phrased in extreme language that the answer choice will be wrong as well.

I think the important thing to keep in mind once you are down to answer choices (A) and (B) is that you want to grant the LSAT writer the premises, but then be skeptical of the conclusion. So, given that accidents are at too high a level for small cars, should we give up on increasing fuel efficiency?

Answer choice (A) says that the argument presumes its premise to be true. But we do that in all arguments on the LSAT. We need to find a gap in the argument between the given premises and the conclusion. Which is where answer choice (B) comes in. This one says that we failed to think about other ways to increase fuel efficiency (Hybrid SUV's, Hydrogen vehicles, etc...). So, even though small cars are dangerous (we must accept this as a premise), it doesn't have to be true that we need to give up on increasing fuel efficiency.

Grant the argument its evidence but then question the conclusion they draw, and this will help you find the gap.

[aap]

Very helpful, thanks for the prompt reply.

[asafezrati]

I see the argument core this way:

Small cars are more dangerous -> small cars aren't worth it -> manufacturers shouldn't seek to increase efficiency.

The core, as it was described in the Manhattan guide looks more like this:

Small cars that can lead to efficiency are unacceptably unsafe -> Manufacturers shouldn't seek to increase efficiency.

My questions:

1. Am I wrong in the way I see the core? Maybe my core is more to the point than the book's, or maybe both of the are valid?

2. If my core is correct, and the "small cars not worth the risk" is a subsidiary conclusion - I can see that answer choice A still isn't a necessary assumption between the first premise and the sub-conclusion. I'm wondering wheather something like this would have worked: "presumes that it would be impossible to to reduce the small cars' inherent risks enough so the added risk will be worth it."

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

1. Am I wrong in the way I see the core? Maybe my core is more to the point than the book's, or maybe both of the are valid?

Your view of the argument core may be a little less direct, but I think it's perfectly fine, looks good to me!

2. If my core is correct, and the "small cars not worth the risk" is a subsidiary conclusion - I can see that answer choice A still isn't a necessary assumption between the first premise and the sub-conclusion. I'm wondering whether something like this would have worked: "presumes that it would be impossible to to reduce the small cars' inherent risks enough so the added risk will be worth it."

I like it!! Yep, that would have been a much better answer than they gave us in answer choice (A). Nice work!

[JosephV]

Hi,

Could someone help me with answer choice (A), please?

The stimulus says two things about small cars: (1) "more likely to be seriously damaged;" and (2) "provide less protection for their occupants." So based on this, even if (A) were true, I'd still be left with the second problem of "less protection." Will this way of thinking be valid to throw away (A)?

Another question: do we take "seriously damaged in collisions" from the stimulus and "dangerous accidents for small cars" from (A) to be equivalent statements?

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

When you see "presumes" or "takes for granted" in a Flaw answer choice, you should be using your Necessary Assumption brain.

(A) is saying, "This argument is flawed because the author presumed this Necessary Assumption: it's impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars"

Would you have picked this answer on Necessary Assumption?

We are famously scared of strong language on NA, and we should also be scared of strong language on any Flaw answer choice that begins with
presumes
takes for granted
fails to establish
assumes, without warrant,

The author just said that smaller cars are more likely to get jacked up than are bigger cars.

That doesn't mean he thinks that it's IMPOSSIBLE to reduce the likelihood of an accident.

He could easily say, "of course it's possible to reduce the likelihood of an accident, but smaller cars will always be MORE vulnerable to damage than are larger cars."

Beyond the extreme word dealbreaker, you could raise the issue you did about (A) only dealing with one of the negative components of small cars.

Beyond that, you could say (A) doesn't deal with EITHER component!

"The likelihood of dangerous accidents" means "how likely is a small car to get into a dangerous accident"?

The author never says that small cars are more likely to get into dangerous accidents.

IF they are in an accident, they are more likely to be damaged.

But maybe they are way less likely to get into an accident in the first place than larger cars are.

(this is literally a different LSAT question I've seen ---- some dude is arguing that large cars are safer because fewer people in the car get injured when the car is in an accident. Then the correct answer weakens by saying, "yes, but the maneuverability of the small car means that it will avoid getting into an accident in the first place!")

[johnB627]

Hello everyone,

Let me begin by saying thank you for all your assistance. I rarely have issues understanding a question after a thorough explanation like this, but this is just one of those questions that persists.

If you attribute the "added risk to human lives" to more smaller cars on the road that are "more likely to be damaged in collisions" and "provide less protection for their occupants" during collisions (which is how I interpreted the sentence). Does this not assume that it is impossible to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving smaller cars enough to mitigate the additional risks to human lives associated with more smaller cars? Which is what A .suggests.

If you do not make the same attribution that I made, then answer A. clearly does not work. However, even then I fail to see how one's reasoning is flawed because of the conclusion one draws from that reasoning.

[andrewgong01]

Hello everyone,

Let me begin by saying thank you for all your assistance. I rarely have issues understanding a question after a thorough explanation like this, but this is just one of those questions that persists.

If you attribute the "added risk to human lives" to more smaller cars on the road that are "more likely to be damaged in collisions" and "provide less protection for their occupants" during collisions (which is how I interpreted the sentence). Does this not assume that it is impossible to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving smaller cars enough to mitigate the additional risks to human lives associated with more smaller cars? Which is what A .suggests.

If you do not make the same attribution that I made, then answer A. clearly does not work. However, even then I fail to see how one's reasoning is flawed because of the conclusion one draws from that reasoning.

I see what you are saying. I did not like A at first and then I eliminated all the other answer choices. A is saying the argument assumes impossible for smaller cars to be safer. If we negate it it says that it is POSSIBLE for smaller cars to be safer. That doesn't destroy the argument and maybe smaller cars are still not as safe (after all, larger heavier cars are obviously going to always be safer holding everything else equal because of science) . However, it does cast doubt on the argument because it saying that it is possible to make smaller cars safer and if it is possible to make smaller cars safer than maybe it is fine to go ahead with making small fuel -efficient cars. The argument treats it, as you stated, that it is not possible to lower the likehood of a collision but that is an assumption where it assumes it is not possible - but who is to say it is not possible? That's what Answer A does, it states the argument assumes smaller cars can't be made safer and that is what the argument assumes. I guess it could be argued further wether or not it is a "flaw" but an assumption is by deifntation going to be an unstated gap in the argument and any gap is, strictly speaking, bad.

[johnB627]

My dilemma is with the question stem and answer B. The question + answer B. means that the reasoning is flawed because of it's conclusion. However, a conclusion by definition must be at the end. The question stem asks what the argument does that makes the reasoning flawed. Answer B. then adds "conclusion" into the overall terminology. "Conclusion," regardless of its relationship to the written argument, or its relationship to the reasoning cannot be the cause of something that must preceded it. If we accept that there is "reasoning" at all in the argument as the question stem states then it still necessarily precedes the the conclusion.

[Heart Shaped Box]

Hello everyone,


If you attribute the "added risk to human lives" to more smaller cars on the road that are "more likely to be damaged in collisions" and "provide less protection for their occupants" during collisions (which is how I interpreted the sentence). Does this not assume that it is impossible to reduce the likelihood of accidents involving smaller cars enough to mitigate the additional risks to human lives associated with more smaller cars? Which is what A .suggests.

If you do not make the same attribution that I made, then answer A. clearly does not work. However, even then I fail to see how one's reasoning is flawed because of the conclusion one draws from that reasoning.

I think you might be overthinking a bit based on your own understanding towards the real world instead of taking the stimulus in its face value. The argument simply says if we make cars smaller, then they are more vulnerable to damage once in an accident. This added risk to human lives is simply referring to the vulnerability of smaller car due to "size" once in accidents. Nowhere does in the argument suggest the "number" of smaller cars, more of less of them. I understand where you come from -- if we make cars smaller, then there inherently are "more" of them. But again, first of all, we added this notion of number in ourselves, and secondly it's not the argument's concern when it refers to the added risks to human lives. The added risk to human lives concerns with the size, not number. We could just make ONE smaller car, and the argument still holds that added risk to human lives is not worth it due to its size once in an accident, you see? The quantity of smaller cars is simply not being talked about, nor does it matter.

But, all of that is beside the point, for its not the flaw. Let's do a quick rundown of the argument:

some ppl say we should make cars smaller to get better gas, (context) but smaller cars is more dangerous in an accident, and this added risk to human lives due to its size it's not worth it, (premises) therefore...what? Maybe we shouldn't make smaller cars! But what does the conclusion say? We shouldn't try to get better gas! But why? just bc one way (smaller cars) to get better gas is not acceptable doesn't mean we just shouldn't try to get better gas altogether? Better gas is still good for reducing pollution and all, and there are plenty of other ways to do it, just don't make cars smaller that's all.