lsat strenghtening and assumption

thephoenix wrote:lsat strenghtening and assumption

9. IMO -- E

10. IMO -- C --> Difficult one. Just used POE.

Let me kwno if am right,,

@thephoenix , thanks for posting the Q as a jpg . Your LSAT Qs are too good to miss
If a person chooses to walk rather than drive, there is one less vehicle emitting pollution into the air than there would be otherwise. Threfore if people would walk whenever it is feasible for them to do so, the pollution will be greatly reduced.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A) Cutting down on pollution can be acheived in a variety of ways.
B) Taking public transportation rather than driving is not always feasible
C) Walking is the only feasible alternative to driving that results in reduction in pollution
D) there are people who never drive but who often walk
E) People sometimes drive when it is feasible to walk instead

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the arguement?
A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are
C) Since different vehicles can pollute at diffferent rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive migh themselves decide to drive.
for the benefit of those who are not logged in.

Agree with ShawShank( that is my favorite movie of all times so I can't disagree )


Heres my explanation:

9- E

The conclusion of the argument is : " if people would walk whenver feasible for them to do so, pollution will be greatly reduced"

C- was very tempting ....however, it is a trick ...this is not an assumption because the argument never really argues that walking is the only feasible alternative ...

E- yes if people sometimes chose to drive when it is feasible to walk then we can surely use all of these opportunities to reduce pollution


10- C

C - it shows the relation between pollution and driving thus it strengthens the conclusion ...

As per the set the OA for second one is B
any views !!!

thephoenix wrote:As per the set the OA for second one is B
any views !!!

Well none of the answer choices are even near to strengthen the argument. However, here is my stake.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the arguement?
A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
No idea.

B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are
If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion.
THOUGH IT'S NOT SUPPORTING DIRECTLY AND REQUIRES ASSUMPTION, BUT SOME HOW IT'S NEITHER OUT OF SCOPE NOR WEAKENING THE ARGUMENT.


C) Since different vehicles can pollute at diffferent rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
Out of scope. So what if the vehicles pollute at different rate. This choice can strengthen the argument if it state that more drives whose vehicles are polluting more, have decided to walk.

D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
Out of Scope. Talking about cars and buses only.

E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.
Weakening statement

lkm wrote:

thephoenix wrote:As per the set the OA for second one is B
any views !!!

Well none of the answer choices are even near to strengthen the argument. However, here is my stake.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the arguement?
A) If automobile passengers who never drive walk instead of ride, there will not be fewer vehicles on the road as a result.
No idea.

B) Nonmoving running vehicles, on average, emit half as much pollution per second as moving vehicles, but the greater congestion is, the more nonmoving running vehicles there are
If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion.
THOUGH IT'S NOT SUPPORTING DIRECTLY AND REQUIRES ASSUMPTION, BUT SOME HOW IT'S NEITHER OUT OF SCOPE NOR WEAKENING THE ARGUMENT.


C) Since different vehicles can pollute at diffferent rates, it is possible for one driver who walks to make a greater contribution to pollution prevention than another driver who walks.
Out of scope. So what if the vehicles pollute at different rate. This choice can strengthen the argument if it state that more drives whose vehicles are polluting more, have decided to walk.

D) On average, buses pollute more than cars do, but buses usually carry more passengers than cars do.
Out of Scope. Talking about cars and buses only.

E) Those who previously rode as passengers in a vehicle whose driver decides to walk instead of drive might themselves decide to drive.
Weakening statement

I dont agree with this explanation.. Still have a doubt as to why B... any other takers who can explain better..
Phoenix.. u sure,,, OA -- B

Shawshank wrote:
I dont agree with this explanation.. Still have a doubt as to why B... any other takers who can explain better..
Phoenix.. u sure,,, OA -- B

Any reason for disagreement. I would like to discuss.

Thanks

Based on what lkm said:

"If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion."

By extending it little bit more you get the below cause -effect.

Less vehicles means less congestion and less congestion means fewer non moving vehicles and fewer non-moving vehicles means less pollution.

Less Vehicles -> Less Congestion -> Fewer Non Moving vehicles -> Less Pollution (Supports the main arg)

But lkm, there is an assumption you are making in the above explanation, that is:

if there are fewer vehicles on the road, there will be less congestion.

But, congestion can happen due to some accident, not necessarily be fewer vehicles. What do you say?

madhukumar_v wrote:Based on what lkm said:

"If people choose to walk over ride, then there will be less vehicles on the road and it leads to less congestion or may be no congestion."

By extending it little bit more you get the below cause -effect.

Less vehicles means less congestion and less congestion means fewer non moving vehicles and fewer non-moving vehicles means less pollution.

Less Vehicles -> Less Congestion -> Fewer Non Moving vehicles -> Less Pollution (Supports the main arg)

But lkm, there is an assumption you are making in the above explanation, that is:

if there are fewer vehicles on the road, there will be less congestion.

But, congestion can happen due to some accident, not necessarily be fewer vehicles. What do you say?

Hi

I guess we are going too far on this question.

Congestion can happen because of accident also but how often do you find the congestion happen with accident to the congestion happen with high number vehicles on the road.

AFAIK, the later has very high chances.

Yes I have made the assumption in option (B) but other options are not even nearer to support the argument even after making the assumption.