Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 274 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 274
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

To accommodate the personal automobile, houses are built on widely scattered lots far from places of work and shopping malls are equipped with immense parking lots that leave little room for wooded areas. Hence, had people generally not used personal automobiles, the result would have to have been a geography of modern cities quite different from the one we have now.
The argument's reasoning is questionable because the argument

A. infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that it could only have resulted from that cause
B. infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that other facets of modern life resulted from that cause
C. overlooks the fact that many technological innovations other than the personal automobile have had some effect on the way people live
D. takes for granted that shopping malls do not need large parking lots even given the use of the personal automobile
E. takes for granted that people ultimately want to live without personal automobiles

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A 🗳️
Whats the flaw? Lets check it out. To make room for cars, housing developments and shopping mall developed in a certain way. The author concludes (note the
Keyword "Hence") that had cars not been so popular, modern cities would be much different than they are now. This boils down to a simple argument of causation: Cars cause a certain geography; take away the cause, and the result will change. But whos to say that the same geography would not have resulted anyway?
What if a different popular form of transportation that emerged instead of cars had the same effect? Cars may have been sufficient to bring about the geography described, but nowhere does it say theyre necessarythat is, that something else couldnt bring about the same living and shopping environments described in the argument. Its invalid to argue that without cars, cities would be different, because while the automobile did bring about the world described, it need not be the onlything that could have created that environment. A. describes this common flaw perfectly.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:38 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!