LR Question 8 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Satellite navigation systems (satnavs) for cars…
QUESTION TYPE: Strengthen
CONCLUSION: Satnav directions make you drive safer and save fuel.
REASONING: Drivers who use satnavs take routes that are 7% shorter, and don’t need to take their eyes off the road to look at a map.
ANALYSIS: This is already a fairly good argument. There’s no obvious flaw to fix, so instead we can strengthen the argument by adding an additional reason that Satnavs or helpful.
Note that the stimulus is only talking about people who do use satnavs. Some wrong answers talk about whether most people will use satnavs, which is addressing the wrong question.
___________
- The stimulus is talking about people who do use satnavs. Whether many people use satnavs isn’t relevant.
- So? Satnavs might still help people find shorter routes, even if drivers are motivated. The satnav evidence was about novel destinations – even motivated people might need help figuring out the best route in a new location.
- This suggests that these drivers will not be using satnavs. So? The argument was about what happens when people do use satnavs.
- This weakens the argument. It shows that typically, people don’t listen to their satnavs. If that’s so, then satnavs can’t help.
- CORRECT. This adds an additional reason why satnavs are safer. Satnavs give directions as needed, and this answer says that doing so reduces risky maneuvers.
More Resources for Strengthen Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Strengthen questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers strengthen questions.
I have a question on why not C —
The question says that Satnavs save fuel when drivers are driving to novel destinations. Therefore, the question could be strengthened if we prove that drivers only use Satnavs when driving to novel destinations. C tell us that drivers who are going to going to familiar destinations plan out their route before they drive, so they don’t use a Satnav. So if a driver was using a Satnav, they’d be most likely using it to go to a new destination, in which case it would save fuel. E addresses safety, but the question already tells us that Satnav users drive more carefully.
Thanks!
The argument listed one benefit of satnavs. Proving they’re *only* used in this situation doesn’t strengthen the benefit. Your argument would only work if for some reason satnavs wasted fuel when going to familiar destinations. But we have no evidence of that.
Proving that drivers only use Satnavs when driving to novel destinations doesn’t strengthen the argument that Satnavs save fuel when drivers are driving to novel destinations. You could also use Satnavs in an area that you’re familiar with but discover a new shortcut that would save you miles and fuel. That would also strengthen the argument that miles/fuel is saved. Another prephase that would strengthen the idea that Satnavs save fuel when drivers are in new destinations would be along the lines of “because the driver knows exactly which road to take, he is less likely to take the wrong road and end up taking long detours to get back on the right path”. This idea is embodied in Answer Choice E, which says that “drivers who are given directions as needed are less likely to change course suddenly”. Less course changing means less miles/fuel wasted, means less used.
Also for C, it could be that the driver both planned his route and also used a Satnav. And for questions that ask you to strengthen the argument, it is fine for the correct answer to address something that the question has already mentioned (in this case safety).
The obvious flaw in the argument is it is only more fuel efficient and safer if it was assisting in going to a novel place or being used at all. What if it was less safe for trips to accustomed destinations? D shows that it isn’t used for accustomed destination so it is likely the same amount of safety, not less. Why is that wrong?
On the lsat it is best to avoid outlandish assumptions that have no basis. That something is possible does not make it reasonable – nothing suggested satnavs are dangerous. In the argument we are given two reasons satnavs help with safety. And the argument is that satnav systems will make driving safer.
Your argument for D is “But what is satnavs are actually dangerous? Ah this shows we don’t use them, that’s helpful”
We’re trying to suggest that satnav’s are helpful. Assuming they must be dangerous is somewhat paranoid and contrary to the author’s purpose. For a satnav to increase safety and reduce fuel usage you need to USE it. Otherwise it merely has a neutral effect.
E, by contrast, directly shows increased safety. Finding a flaw is all well and good but there’s nothing seriously wrong with this argument. You can support the conclusion by adding more advantages.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.