Prep 23, Section 3, #10

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Prep 23, Section 3, #10

Postby soyeonjeon » Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:44 am

Prep 23, Section 3, #10

I truly do not see the answer for this one.
Which one is the answer and why?

Thank you.

Also, I had difficulty spotting an answer for # 9.
Could someone help me with these?

Thank you,
Best Wishes

User avatar
boblawlob
Posts: 524
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: Prep 23, Section 3, #10

Postby boblawlob » Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:20 am

#9 - Look at the conclusion. If people walk when its feasible to, pollution will be eliminated.

A- The argument doesn't care about "a variety of ways." Eliminate.
B- We're talking about walking and driving....not public transportation. Eliminate.
C- This answer choice is too strong. Even if walking wasn't the only alternative, it doesn't mean that walking can't significantly reduce pollution. Eliminate.
D- The argument is concerned with people who drive instead of walk, not people who walk instead of drive. Eliminate
E- Answer! Let's negate this statement: People never drive when it is feasible to walk. (Feasible to walk -> -Drive). Take the contrapositive of that (Drive -> -Feasible to walk). So those who drive do so because they can't walk? Well if they don't have the option of walking, then how can pollution even be reduced at all?


#10

A- If the amount of cars on the road aren't reduced, then this doesn't help our argument... Eliminate
B- This is the answer. This isn't the greatest, most clear cut answer...but it's better than any of the other ones. This helps the argument because it's tell us that pollution increases when there's congestion in traffic and therefore people can't move on to their destination. So that tells us that maybe if we walked to our destination, we would reduce congestion and therefore reduce pollution.
C- Breaking down the different amounts of possible pollution for different cars doesn't help us strengthen the conclusion that increased walking will lead to increased pollution reduction.
D- We don't care about buses. All we care about is driving and walking. Eliminate.
E- This weakens the argument if passengers decide to drive instead of walk with their former drivers.

soyeonjeon
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:28 am

Re: Prep 23, Section 3, #10

Postby soyeonjeon » Wed Oct 03, 2012 12:14 am

Thanks for your reply. It helped greatly.
But I am an international student.
how would you know that nonmoving running vehicle means automobiles trapped in a congested traffic?
I could not conjure up that idea when I first read nonmoving running vehicles.
How could I know that? I know this question is tough to answer but I would appreciate it if someone can please help me out here.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests