Well, now it is time for a real bitch. In my humble opinion, this is one of the hardest questions from the June test.

June 2009, LR2, #14

First of all, it is a hard question type. Second, it is a difficult stimulus to diagram and visualize. Third, the answer choices talk about a food company named Lester’s, which might be the most unfortunate name for a food company ever (you know, because it rhymes with molester and all, and who wants to buy milk from someone with a name like that).

But let’s put all of that aside and give it a shot. I am going to do this one with you in real time to illustrate how you can get through a tough question like this.

First, read the prompt and figure out what type of question you are dealing with.

Which one of the following situations violates the food labeling regulation?

Now this is not a very common type of question on the LSAT. Also, it does not contain the key words that normally give it away. But this is a Must Be False (MBF) question. Essentially, they are going to outline some sort of regulation in the stimulus regarding food labeling (exciting, I know). And then we need to identify an answer choice that violates that regulation. Some terrible food producer has chosen to violate the rules. Or, in other words, one of the answer choices cannot be true or must be false according to the regulation.

Must Be False questions are rare on the LSAT; you will only get 1 or 2 on your entire exam. But they tend to be tough because students have issues thinking in terms of falsity. We are used to figuring out what is proven true, but false is a whole new issue. Sometimes the prompt will simply ask for an answer that must be false or cannot be true, but they will also introduce these questions by seeking an answer choice that contradicts the stimulus or violates the stimulus or is inconsistent with the stimulus.

Here is one trick that you can use on a MBF question. First, anticipate what must be true. Generally, this is an easier first step for students. Then just use that conclusion to anticipate what would have to be false. Let me give you a simple example.

All trapeze artists have good life insurance. Some people with bad balance foolishly become trapeze artists.

If all of the statements above are true, then which one of the following CANNOT be true?

This would be a Must Be False question. There are two statements in the stimulus and here is how you should approach this situation. Just jumping in and trying to think of something false is very difficult, but first let’s figure out what must be true.

1.     Trapeze Artist → Good Life Insurance
2.     Bad Balance some Trapeze Artist

This is actually a very common deduction on the LSAT that involves combining a conditional statement with a some statement. If all trapeze artists have good life insurance and some trapeze artists have bad balance (bad call, kinda like Sarah Palin going into family planning), then it must be true that some people with bad balance have good life insurance.

Now that you realize what must be true, it is easier to think about an answer that must be false. Since you now know that some people with bad balance have good life insurance, it would be false to say that no one with bad balance has good life insurance or to say that no one with good life insurance has bad balance. And that is what you anticipate. The right answer would look something like this.

(B)     No one with good life insurance has bad balance.

Now that we have covered the general approach (and fulfilled my deep desire to discuss circus performers), back to our question. Here is the stimulus.

Food labeling regulation: Food of a type that does not ordinarily contain a high number of calories cannot be labeled “low calorie” unless most people mistakenly believe the food ordinarily contains a high number of calories. If most people mistakenly believe that a food contains a high number of calories, the food may be labeled “low calorie” if the label also states that the food ordinarily contains a low number of calories.

So this question touches on an issue that hits close to home. I just had an argument with a friend about what I consider to be the insulting idea that companies that sell me bottled water find it necessary to include nutrition information on the label. Really? Do I really need to know that my Aquafina has 0 grams of fat? Was I wondering how many calories are in my bottle of Arrowhead? And how about what percentage of my recommended daily value that accounts for? Ridiculous.

Anyway, here is the regulation, and it is a bit wordy. The first sentence states that a low calorie food cannot be labeled “low calorie” unless most people think that is has a lot of calories. If most people do not think a food has a lot of calories, then it should not be labeled “low calorie.” Or, an easier way to put it, if most people know it is low calorie, then don’t put it on the label. You hear that, Dasani?

Most people know it is low calorie → Don’t label “low calorie”

The second sentence states that if most people do mistakenly think a food has calories, then you can label it “low calorie” as long as the label also explains that the food normally does not have calories. Essentially, you can set people straight but you can’t act like you are special. So here would be that part of the regulation.

Most people mistakenly think calories → Can label “low calorie” but not special

Now we are ready to go. The first big obstacle is to simplify the regulations, which we have now done. Next step is anticipation.

There is no way to combine the regulations since they are dealing with different types of products. But still take some time to think about what you are looking for in an answer. First, both of these regulations have to do with foods that are low in calories, so if any answer choice talks about other food products or does not say that the food is low in calories, then that will be an easy way to knock out answers.

Of the remaining few, if people know it does not have calories, then don’t tell them what they already know. So if an answer said that everyone knows bottled water is low in calories and yet every company labels it “low calorie,” that would violate the regulation.

And if most people mistakenly think that a food has calories, then you can label it “low calorie” as long as you explain that it is not special. So if an answer said pita bread is mistakenly believed to have a high number of calories and it is labeled “low calorie” but does not explain that the food normally does not have calories, this would also violate the regulations.

One of those two things will always be the answer. I guarantee it (cue bad Men’s Wearhouse guy). The key is just to do the legwork.

So here are the answers. I will give them to you one-by-one and try to figure out whether the answer violates the regulations before reading my explanation.

(A)     Although most people know that bran flakes do not normally contain a high number of calories, Lester’s Bran Flakes are not labeled “low calorie.”

See, I told you it was coming. Lester (the molester) Food Producers. This answer is actually right in keeping with the regulations. Most people know bran flakes (yummy, just like eating chalk for breakfast) don’t have calories and they don’t label it. So that is the proper action according to the regulations. No go on (A). Next…

(B)     Although most people are aware that lasagna ordinarily contains a high number of calories, Lester’s lasagna, which contains a low number of calories, is not labeled “low calorie.”

Did you go for that? I am guessing that this was a popular answer choice. But stick to your guns, that is not what we said the answer would sound like. If you think about it, this situation is not even covered by the regulations. Here, most people are correct that lasagna has a lot of calories (meat and cheese, mmmm). But we only know the rule if people mistakenly think that a food normally has a high number of calories.

And, even if you took this to mean that people are mistaken about Lester’s lasagna, there is another problem. If that were the case, then Lester would totally be allowed to label his lasagna as “low calorie,” but he does not have to do so. Maybe he isn’t selling the health benefits of his lasagna and just wants people to buy for taste.

So (B) is tempting but stay away. And then…

(C)     Although most garlic bread contains a high number of calories, Lester’s garlic bread is labeled “low calorie.”

Well, now, wait just a second, Lester. That is messed up. So garlic bread actually does have a bunch of calories and Lester just lies and says that is does not. That might be wrong, and that might be unethical, but that actually does not violate our regulations.

Here, we know that most garlic bread does contain a high number of calories. But does Lester’s? We actually don’t know, so there are lots of problems here. Get it out of here. Still looking for a winner…

(D)     Although most people are aware that applesauce does not normally contain a high number of calories, Lester’s applesauce is labeled “low calorie.”

What do you think? I am hoping you think we just found our answer. Because we did.

Remember, we simplified the first regulation to say that if most people know it does not have calories, then don’t label it. Here, most people know damn Lester and his damn applesauce doesn’t have calories (because it is mushed up apples, after all) and yet Lester still labels it “low calorie.” That is not allowed and that makes (D) our answer.

Note that this answer becomes much more apparent when you take the time to simplify the stimulus and anticipate the answer. Spend that extra minute up top so that you save a couple minutes when you would normally be debating answer choices. Just for kicks, here is the last one…

(E)     Although most people mistakenly believe that salsa ordinarily contains a high number of calories, Lester’s Zesty Salsa says “This product, like all salsas, is low in calories.”

Yikes, now they put the words Lester and Zesty next to one another. Creepy. This answer would be great if they were asking us for something that follows the regulations, but that is not what we are looking for. Here, most people mistakenly think that salsa has a high number of calories, so Lester tells them his salsa is low in calories and he also appropriately tells consumers that his salsa is not special.

So we confidently go with (D) on this one.

That is another question in the books. I hope you are enjoying your summer of LSAT studying. I know that sweating in the heat and having nightmares about parallel questions may not compare to sunny beaches, but it will all pay off in the end.

I will be back with more installments. But now I gotta run to meet up with my buddy Lester.

P.S. What would you rate the difficulty for that question: 1 to 10? I think I would give it a 7.5.

If you missed my first two posts on Logical Reasoning questions from the June 2009 LSAT, you can check them out here.

1. Speed Limits
2. Sea Anemones

So onward and forward. When I was reviewing the June test, the following question struck me as being exceptionally difficult. We will do this one a little differently. I am going to show you the whole question and the answer choices so you actually get a chance to check it out and try to do it yourself. When you are finished, read on and we will discuss. Here you go, enjoy.

June 2009, LR1, #25

The law of the city of Oakland regarding contributions to mayoral campaigns is as follows: all contributions to these campaigns in excess of $1,000 made by nonresidents of Oakland who are not former residents of Oakland must be registered with the city council. Barkley’s mayoral campaign clearly complied with this law since it accepted contributions only from residents and former residents of Oakland.

If all the statements above are true, which one of the following statements must be true?

(A)     No nonresident of Oakland contributed in excess of $1,000 to Barkley’s campaign.
(B)     Some contributions to Barkley’s campaign in excess of $1,000 were registered with the city council.
(C)     No contributions to Barkley’s campaign needed to be registered with the city council.
(D)     All contributions to Barkley’s campaign that were registered with the city council were in excess of $1,000.
(E)     Barkley’s campaign did not register any contributions with the city council.

Doo doo doo doo doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo doo, doop doo doo doo doo doo (that was supposed to be Jeopardy music).

So that one is a little ugly, but the trick is a very common one on the LSAT.

First things first, that is a Must Be True question. This is one of the most basic types of questions on the LSAT. You are given some information in the stimulus and asked to find an answer choice that is necessarily true based on those original statements.

Here, anticipation is key. (Anticipation is really always key.) Bad test takers think that the points come from the answer choices. Good test takers understand that the points are really earned in breaking down the stimulus.

(Side note: I am taking the upcoming LSAT so I was doing some informal practice with some students last night. I kept noticing that they all finished reading the stimulus much faster than I did. I am reasonably certain that I will score very well on the September LSAT and I might read through the 50 stimuli on the test slower than every one of my students. There is a lesson in there somewhere.)

So here is the principle that they give you in the stimulus. If you get over $1,000 in campaign contributions from anyone that is not a resident of Oakland and not a former resident of Oakland, you must register that with the city council. This can be simplified as follows:

Over $1,000 + Never Lived in Oakland → Register

On the LSAT, it is also always important to keep in mind the contrapositive. To form the contrapositive, you switch the terms and negate all of the terms. So this would also mean that if a contribution does not need to be registered, then it is either under $1,000 or it is from someone that currently lives or formerly lived in Oakland.

Not Registered → Not over $1,000 or Lives now or Lived in Oakland

So that takes care of the big principle regarding campaign contributions. Next they give you some specific information about Barkley’s campaign. It is stated that Barkley’s campaign accepted contributions only from residents and former residents of Oakland. In other words, they only took money from people who lived in Oakland at some point, and the campaign did not get any money from people that never lived in Oakland.

So here comes the crucial part. The principle states that the contributions only need to be registered if they are over $1,000 and from people who never lived in Oakland. But Barkley did not accept any contributions from people who have never lived in Oakland. So according to this principle, Barkley did not have to register any contributions with the city council. If you were able to anticipate that conclusion, you will be in good shape.

However, as always, there are some twists and turns waiting in the answer choices.

(A)      This one says that no nonresident of Oakland contributed in excess of $1,000 to Barkley’s campaign. The trick here is that we know that Barkley accepted contributions from only residents and former residents of Oakland. So, a nonresident could have contributed lots and lots of money to the campaign as long as they used to live in Oakland. So this one does not have to be true.

(B)      Here we are told that some contributions in excess of $1,000 were registered with the city council. According to the stimulus, Barkley did not have to register any contributions. Maybe they still did, but we cannot say for sure that any contributions were registered, whether they were over or under $1,000. So no go here.

(C)      And look at us. We anticipated the conclusion that Barkley’s campaign did not need to register any of the contributions it received because they all came from people who lived in Oakland at some point. And this one says that Barkley’s campaign did not need to register any contributions with the city council. Bam. And this is going to be our winner on this question.

(D)      This one says that all contributions that were registered with the city council were in excess of $1,000. But we just said that Barkley’s campaign did not have to register any contributions with the city council. So we do not know that they actually did register any contributions. So we definitely do not know that all of the contributions that were registered were over $1,000.

(E)      This one is tricky. My guess is that this was the most popular wrong answer choice. It says that Barkley’s campaign did not register any contributions with the city council. And that is very close to the conclusion that we anticipated. But let me ask you one quick question: have you ever done anything even though you didn’t need to? Ever help an old lady with her groceries? Give a homeless person some change? Buy your little lady something nice for no reason? Sure, we all have at one point or another. And that is the trick on this one. Even though Barkley was not required to register any of his campaign contributions with the city council, this does not mean that the campaign did not register any of the contributions. Maybe Barkley’s campaign wanted to be very open with their financial information, or maybe Barkley’s campaign was not even aware of the rules related to registering campaign contributions. So this does not need to be true.

So there we go. One more question in the books. One more mistake to avoid. Good luck with your studying.

So then I asked him to show me an example of a question that he got wrong. When he did so, I wanted to beat him senseless. So I did. Well, not really—at least not physically. The question was a form of argument that we had covered extensively in class, but it had surfaced in a type of question that didn’t normally contain that kind of argument.

And then it hit me. Everyone teaches question types in Logical Reasoning. Students are able to improve dramatically on the test by noticing patterns within the different question types. The LSAT can be very daunting when you first stumble upon it in a drunken haze because it appears that it is asking you to do a ton of different things. And then in come LSAT companies who show you that that is not really the case. Every LSAT company in existence teaches students that there are a small number of question types that occur frequently in each Logical Reasoning section. And each company claims to have discovered the ultimate approach to chopping up the section into these categories (Blueprint’s is best, by the way).

My encounter with the unnamed student a few paragraphs ago got me thinking that we might sometimes overlook other similarities within the Logical Reasoning questions that can be just as important, if not more. Sure, the questions asked on the LSAT can be very similar (‘must be true’ versus ‘properly inferred’ versus ‘follows logically’ for example), but so are the arguments that they make. If a student, through practice, can recognize the types of arguments that the LSAT puts forth, they will have found a valuable way to pick up points.

Most notably, if you can understand why a particular conclusion need not follow from the set of premises designed to support it, you should then be able to strengthen that argument, weaken it, identify assumptions, describe the flaw, and on and on.

Here’s an example:

A recent psychological study was run on employees of several local businesses that were open 24 hours a day. It was found that employees who worked the “graveyard” shift, some range between the hours of 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., tended to score higher on several of the tests that tend to evince signs of depression. These results would tend to show that certain elements of working during these hours— irregular sleep patterns, limited personal interaction, lack of sunlight—tend to increase the chances that one will suffer from depression.

This was authored by yours truly but it could easily become the next great LSAT question. In this fake stimulus, you are presented with a very common form of argument on the LSAT (and also an argument to which we all fall prey in everyday life). This argument takes a correlation between working the “graveyard” shift and exhibiting signs of depression to show that working that shift causes depression. We all have friends that do this in everyday life. I have a friend who swears he has a “lucky” shirt because he has gotten laid a couple times while sporting the ugly thing. I continually remind him that all the “lucky” ladies are less likely a result of the shirt and more likely a result of cheap drinks at happy hour. Same deal here. Establishing a correlation on the LSAT is never a sound basis for concluding causation. The most common problem with this form of argument is that there could always be alternate causes (like the drunken factor for my friend).

However, the argument about the “graveyard” shift and depression has another pretty common issue. In this situation, the argument fails to rule out or even consider the possibility that people who are already depressed are more likely to work the “graveyard” shift. You know, because then they do not have to deal with that annoying sunlight or all those damn peppy people with their incessant talking. So here they have failed to exclude the possibility that the cause and the effect are reversed.

But here is my point. If you are able to spot the form of this argument and the problem with the argument (generally referred to as the fallacy), then you should be good to go. I don’t care what type of question they want to throw at you. All you have to do is frame your mindset a little bit differently based on the qualification for the correct answer. Below is a list of question types that could follow the stimulus and examples of what the correct answer choices would sound like:

Flaw: The argument fails to consider the possibility that people who are already depressed are more likely to volunteer to work the “graveyard” shift.

Strengthen: People who are depressed are no more likely than those who are not to accept positions that are generally worked during nighttime hours.

Weaken: In a subsequent study from a neighboring town, researchers found that people who showed symptoms of depression were disproportionately more likely to enjoy working during off hours.

Assumption: If given the choice, people who show signs of depression would be no more likely than those without to choose to work the “graveyard” shift.

Parallel Flaw: People who live in mansions tend to make more money at their jobs. Thus, there must be something about living in a mansion that causes people to advance to high-paying jobs.

So the big lesson is: Don’t just watch the question types. You can learn just as much from how you are understanding and evaluating arguments that are made and repeated in Logical Reasoning.

Here we go again. As I stated in my last post, I am walking through some of the more challenging and important Logical Reasoning questions from the June 2009 LSAT. Last time we explored a causal question regarding the impact of harsh speed limits on accident rates. Now we dive into a different subject matter and a different question type. I chose this question because it is a perfect illustration of a question that can be very frustrating for students. However, once you know how to approach a question like this, you can quickly bring it to its knees.

So here we go. (Note: once again, the question has been slightly altered due to licensing issues.)

June 2009, LR2, #24

First things first, we need to read the prompt and figure out what the hell they want us to do.

The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

The strategy that you should use on a question such as this revolves around understanding exactly what is being asked. Many people will make the mistake of calling this an Assumption question. This is a terrible mistake. The LSAT actually requires you to spot different types of assumptions. So just going for any assumption could lead you to an incorrect answer choice. Here, they actually want an assumption that would function to make the conclusion of the argument follow logically. That is a lot to ask of an answer choice.

As an aside, this is also a pretty dirty trick that is being played. Most people think of an assumption as something that the argument assumes is true. However, this question does not work like that at all. Rather, this question requires an answer choice that, if true, allows the conclusion to follow logically from the premises. That is why some people call this a Justification question. At Blueprint, we call it a Sufficient question. It is best not to think of this as an assumption question at all. Rather, this is like the Barry Bonds on steroids version of a Strengthen question. You are not just asked to strengthen the question, but to go all the way to make it a valid argument.

Now for the stimulus:

It is widely believed that sea anemones—small, primitive sea animals—do not have hearts. Each sea anemone has a contracting vessel, but this vessel is considered an artery rather than a heart. However, this vessel is indeed a heart. After all, it strongly resembles the structure of the heart of certain other sea animals. Moreover, the muscular contractions in the sea anemone’s vessel closely resemble the muscular contractions of other animals’ hearts.

Ouch. Now that is not an easy one to break apart. First, some preliminary issues. For those of you who do not have much experience with sea anemones, you can take a look here to get some info. Not the cutest little guys, but maybe they do have a heart after all.

Now, back to our question. Well, actually we have something bigger to discuss. On a question like this, there is a strategy that you can employ which will make things very easy on you. Essentially what you need to do is bridge the gap from the premises to the conclusion. To show you how this works, let us consider a different argument for a moment:

The cute girl in my biology class asked me to borrow a pencil today. Therefore, she must want me to ask her to prom.

Yikes, now that is some faulty reasoning. But just pretend that this is a similar question to the sea anemones above and that we have to justify the conclusion. First, you have to identify the relevant premises and the conclusion, which looks like this.

P: She asked me to borrow a pencil.

C: She wants me to ask her to prom.

Now, this strategy might actually seem too easy to really work, but I promise it really does. And don’t ever complain that something is too easy. Once you have identified the argument’s parts, you just need to find an answer choice that bridges the gap from the premises to the conclusion.

In real life, it would probably be the case the girl would laugh in your face as she denies the invite to the prom and then tells her linebacker boyfriend who will beat you up later. However, in LSAT-land if we were to posit that anyone who asks another person to borrow a pencil wants that person to ask them to prom, which would bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

P: She asked me to borrow a pencil.

(Ask to borrow pencil → Want invite to prom)

C: She wants me to ask her to prom.

Once we plug that “assumption” into the argument, it is looking pretty nice. The conclusion now follows logically.

Back to the sea anemones, we need to do the same thing. The conclusion of the argument is that sea anemones do have a heart. The premises are that the structure of the vessel and the functions of the vessel are similar to other animals’ hearts. This argument would look like this.

P: It looks like a heart.

P: It works like a heart.

C: It is a heart.

And this is starting to sound like the old adage if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is a duck. Who knew that would actually get you through an LSAT question? But that is pretty much what we are looking for here. To bridge the gap, we need an answer choice that states: if it looks like a heart and works like a heart, well then, by golly, it is a heart.

This question also illustrates another important point. As I am now approaching 1,000 words of writing about sea anemones, you will note that we have not even looked at an answer choice yet. And that is the correct way to do a question like this. Since this question requires us to find something that would bridge the gap from the premises to the conclusion, you should always be able to figure out what would do that before jumping into the answer choices. Anticipation is the key. With that said, it’s time to move to the answer choices.

(A) Only animals that have contracting vessels have hearts.

That is a fascinating tidbit and relevant to our discussion, but remember we need an answer that proves the conclusion. This answer would prove that anything without a contrasting vessel does not have a heart, but that definitely does not help prove our cute little sea anemones do have a heart.

(B) Some primitive animals other than sea anemones have what is likely held to be a heart.

Well, good for them. That will definitely help these other animals in their dating lives. However, this really does not help us and our sea anemones at all.

(C) A vessel whose structure and actions closely resemble those of other animal hearts is a heart.

There it is. If it smells like a heart and looks like a heat, it’s a heart. That should look strikingly similar to what we anticipated before we attacked the answer choices. If this answer choice is plugged into the original argument, then the conclusion follows logically.

P: It looks like a heart.

P: It works like a heart.

(Vessel that resembles a heart → Heart)

C: It is a heart.

So we found our answer, but let’s check out the other losers anyway.

(D) For a vessel in an animal to be properly considered a heart, that vessel must undergo muscular contractions.

This answer choice means that any vessel that is a heart must undergo muscular contractions. Well, the vessel in our sea anemone undergoes muscular contractions. So, according to this, it could be a heart. But it would be a mistake to think that this guarantees that it is a heart. This one comes up a little short.

(E) No animal that has a heart lacks an artery.

They really love double negatives on the LSAT if you have not failed to not notice. It is like Ms. Robinson never beat them with a ruler when they thought double negatives were okay in fourth grade. Well, I was. And ouch. This really means that any animal with a heart has an artery. And that makes sense—a heart would be pretty worthless without an artery for some circulation. But this does not mean that our sea anemone has a heart. We are still left with the eternal question of heart or artery.

So the winner here is (C). There are lots of important lessons to be learned on a question like this: assumptions, bridging the gap, anticipation, and so much more.

I will be back soon with another installment. For now I gotta run and track down that girl who lent me a pencil in class last night…

I got my hands on the June 2009 test pretty recently. As that is the most recent LSAT that anyone will see before the upcoming September exam, there are always important lessons to be learned from such a recent test. As for me, I am taking the September test that will be my first real administered LSAT since 2006. When you teach the LSAT for a living, you tend to familiarize yourself with all of the questions. There is no such thing as an LSAT question that I have not seen. So basically I have no way to study. (I know; it’s a big problem). Except, of course, for the June test. So I was thrilled at the opportunity to take a new LSAT. Yes, I am aware that this is slightly lamer than owning a ShamWow, subscribing to eHarmony, or dotting an i with a heart.

As I was working through the Logical Reasoning on the exam, I inevitably started searching for teaching points as much as correct answer choices. So I decided that I would share some of the valuable lessons that can be easily uncovered in the June test. I am going to write a sequence of blog entries that will break down five or so Logical Reasoning questions from the June 2009 LSAT. (You will be able to purchase the entire test from LSAC some time in July.)

Remember, the big trick on the LSAT is to take what we call “meta-points” from questions. You will not see the same question on your LSAT, unfortunately, but you will have questions that require the same mental maneuvers and you will see incorrect answer choices that will prey upon common mistakes.

Alright, here we go. Note: I have to slightly alter the questions due to licensing issues but the gist is the same.

June 2009, LR1, #20

The first thing that you should always do is read the prompt and classify what type of question you are attempting.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

So here is what we know. We are going to see an argument in the stimulus and it is our job to find an answer choice that weakens this argument. In your mind, you should thus be looking for a weakness in the argument as you read through, so that you can then exploit that weakness in an answer choice.

Below is the stimulus. Read through this slowly and try to comprehend what the argument is trying to prove, how they are attempting to prove it, and attempt to spot any weaknesses in the argument.

Prior to a certain year, when there was no highway speed limit in Los Angeles, the highway accident rate increased yearly, peaking a decade ago. At that time, the speed limit on highways was set at 65 miles per hour. Every year since the introduction of the highway speed limit, the highway accident rate has been at least 15 percent lower that that of its peak rate. Thus, setting the highway speed limit at 65 mph has reduced the highway accident rate by at least 15 percent.

And there we are. First things first, this argument is completely ridiculous to anyone who actually lives in Los Angeles. If you have ever hopped on the glorious 405, you quickly realize that a speed limit on freeways in LA is about as useful as birth control is to the Palin family. We always drive 12 mph unless we are stopped outright. Then we just start shooting at each other in frustration.

Back to the question. This is a very common form of argument in Logical Reasoning. First, you are presented with a correlation. Before there was a speed limit, there were lots of accidents. After a speed limit was imposed, there were fewer accidents. Correlations are very common on the LSAT, and they very commonly set the foundation for a big fallacy that we see here. In this argument, a correlation is taken to imply a much stronger relationship: causation. The conclusion actually asserts that the imposition of the new speed limit is responsible for, or caused, the reduction in the accident rate.

In such a situation, there is always one thing that you should be thinking: It could have been caused by something else. Causation is very hard to establish. So even if it seems likely that the speed limit did decrease the accident rate, you can always weaken that conclusion by raising another possibility. So let your mind wander briefly about what other factors could have stopped people from running into each other. Maybe LA instituted a policy of mandatory driver training? Maybe LA prohibited all alcohol consumption within the city limits? Maybe the driving age was raised to 21 so the crazy teenagers are off the road? The possibilities are endless, but that should be your mindset.

If you think about it, the reasoning in this argument is as simple as in the following argument:

I used to not get many dates. Then I started using AXE deodorant body spray on a daily basis and my social calendar is now completely booked. AXE must have made the difference for me.

Well, not necessarily. We fall prey to this type of reasoning in everyday life, and we are often presented with it in advertisements (like the compelling ad above). Of course, it could be possible that something else led to my sudden increase in dates, like puberty, or money, or possibly dropping my standards.

There are a few other things to notice here.

First, note that the argument concerns the accident rate. There is a big distinction on the LSAT between statements based in numbers and statements based in percentages. Saying that the fatality rate for base jumping is higher than the fatality rate for crossing the street does not necessarily mean that more people die of base jumping than crossing the street. In this question, we are dealing with the accident rate, so that would be independent of the number of drivers on the road. This is always important to keep in mind. They could give you an answer choice that says that more people are utilizing public transportation since the new speed limit was put into place (yeah, right, this is LA). That would be a very tempting answer choice but actually would be irrelevant because we are only dealing with the accident rate and not the total number of accidents.

Second, always track the conclusion, as it is the most important part of the argument. Here, it says that the speed limit has reduced the accident rate by at least 15 percent. That is an incredibly strong claim. They are not just saying that the speed limit is partially responsible for the change in the accident rate, but that the speed limit is entirely responsible. Thus, to weaken the conclusion, we just have to find some other option that could account for part of that 15 percent decrease.

Finally, always watch for the scope of the argument. Here we are just talking about highways in Los Angeles. So the accidents that occur on the side streets or in alleys or parking lots would not be relevant. Additionally, information about other cities would not be relevant unless they bear a strong relationship to LA (Chicago, maybe, Des Moines, no).

Excellent. Now that might seem like a lot, but this is the key. You have to be able to notice the little tricks that are commonly introduced. If you can do this sort of analysis (and do it in roughly 30 seconds), you will never get a question wrong.

Now we examine the answer choices. For each one, try to think about whether it weakens the argument.

(A) In the years prior to the introduction of the highway speed limit, many cars could go faster than 65 mph.

Wow, say it ain’t so. There were cars that could go faster than 65 mph? Those people must have been scared for their lives. Flying along at 68 mph? While this is both fascinating and scary, this tells us nothing about the effect of the new speed limit.

(B) Ten years ago, at least 95 percent of all automobile accidents in the area occurred on roads with a speed limit of fewer than 60 mph.

So this answer choice says that nearly all of the accidents that occurred before the new speed limit did not happen on the highway. But we already said that this is irrelevant. The proportion of accidents that take place on or off the highway does not matter. We just need to know why the accident rate on the highway went down.

(C) Although the speed limit on many highways is officially set at 65 mph, most people typically drive faster than the speed limit.

This one is tempting. Here is what they want you to think. Oh, so people don’t obey the speed limit and that means that the speed limit could not have been the reason why the accident rate went down. But that would be a mistake. This argument does not state anywhere that people all drive under the speed limit. Maybe everyone now drives 70 mph but that is still much slower than they used to drive. Or maybe the speed limit did not dramatically change the speed that people drive, but it sill makes them drive more safely because they know that there are restrictions in place. So be careful, this one does not weaken the argument.

(D) Thanks to changes in automobile design in the past ten years, drivers are better able to maintain control of their cars in dangerous situations.

Now, think about this one. The time frame is right because it focuses on the last ten years (since the speed limit was introduced and after there was the peak in the accident rate). If it is the case that car manufacturers are producing safer cars, then that could also account for the decrease in the accident rate. If all of the cars on the road have better brakes or give drivers better control and more ability to avoid accidents, then this could have dropped the accident rate, whether the speed limit was reduced or not. Since this gives us another factor that could account for the accident rate other than the speed limit, this answer choice weakens the argument.

One quick problem that students sometimes face. Yes, but couldn’t the speed limit still be responsible? It could be, but that is not the point. Even though the speed limit change could still have been responsible for some, most, or even all of the drop in the accident rate, raising the changes in automobile design as another alternative weakens the support for that conclusion. On a question like this, you do not have to annihilate the conclusion; you just need to weaken it. It will seldom be the case that you can prove that a conclusion is false, but rather you just have to prove that it is less likely to be true.

(E) It was not until shortly after the introduction of the highway speed limit that most cars were equipped with features such as seat belts and airbags designed to prevent harm to passengers.

This is also a very popular answer choice. However, there is an easy way to dismiss this as an option. The argument here has to do with the accident rate, so we are concerned with how many people get into automobile accidents. This answer choice is concerned with what happens after an accident takes place. Do the passengers get injured or not? We hope not, but whether the passengers get a bruise or lose a limb actually doesn’t affect the fact that there was an accident in the first place.

After our analysis, it is hopefully clear that you should choose answer choice (D) and move on with confidence. This illustrates just how much you can learn from one Logical Reasoning question. The LSAT is very good at hiding the concepts that they like to test, but if you really analyze a question you can start to see how this test really works.

So keep breaking down those arguments and I will be back soon with another installment. For now, I am going to lower my standards as I slather myself with some AXE.