Q2 - We already know from thorough

[pjohnso]

Ok so, i got this one right, but it took me a little longer than i would like for the 2nd question. basically what i gathered was, the conclusion is that the 2nd driver isn't liable, b/c the first driver admitted to changing lanes, and they knew he didn't use a signal. the question asks what would be most important to know in evaluating the conclusion. for me, b c and d were quick elimination, but A kept sticking out.

is E the correct answer b/c if driver 2 answers in the affirmative, it is clear he isn't liable, but if answered in the negative, you couldn't say for certain that he isn't liable? i think i got caught up on this one b/c i was looking for something that would prove that driver 1 was or was not in fact liable, but i'm not so sure that that is what the question was getting at. sorry for the novel, i'm pretty confident i am over thinking this one haha. thanks.

[theaether]

My answer key says A is correct.

B: whether he knows or not is irrelevant
C: other vehicles? irrelevant
D: reliable witness? we got the information from "further evidence" so it's not necessarily based on the first driver
E: Well, it was proven to be off. So a hypothetical here doesn't really matter. We already know it's either X(no signal and change lanes) or Y(excessive speed). In this framework, there's no possibility of another option Z presenting itself (signalled but driver 2 didn't see the signal). We have to work with what we have, which is X or Y.

The argument acquits driver 2 just because driver 1 was stuck with a sufficient cause for the accident. Both could have contributed, and both could be liable. That's why choice A is correct, because it would be useful in knowing if driver 2 really is innocent or not.

It's like saying if I overslept, then I forgot to set my alarm or I worked too hard the night before. And because I forgot to set my alarm, then I surely did not work too hard the night before. Not logical is it? Could be both.

Just on a side note, I've noticed the first 3-5 questions being significantly more complex in post PT50s than in the 30s or 40s. Weird. And it messes you up if you go into it thinking that it's supposed to be the "easy" questions.

[pjohnso]

ugh yea you are right, not sure where i got e from, that would explain why i had such a hard time eliminating it. but yea that makes a lot of sense, thanks.

and i agree, i've definitely been thrown off and it felt harder to get my momentum going in the first 10. hopefully that doesn't keep up in the latter 50s but i won't get my hopes up...

[giladedelman]

Great discussion, folks! I totally agree with the explanation. I also agree that, mostly because it's so wordy, this problem is harder than what I'd expect to find at #2. But that just reminds us that we have to evaluate each problem on its own merits; the difficulty curve can help us with our overall timing strategy, but each LR problem has to be approached as if in a vacuum. If you're worrying about how hard it should be, you're diverting mental energy from the task of answering it.

[Crogati]

I need to have this tattooed on my hand because I always forget: the LSAT treats either/or statements in an inclusive sense right? So that's why answer choice A is important for us to know? Driver 1 or Driver 2 or both can be liable. Usually in ordinary conversation we think of either/or in an exclusive sense...right?

[tommywallach]

Exactly!

-t

[JohnZ880]

Takeaway: remember that OR is inclusive not exclusive. If I did, I would've saved a good 20 seconds or so on this question.

[WilliamS670]

Of course 'or' is inclusive. The important takeaway is that 'either/or' is inclusive. In line with common usage, I took either/or as exclusive and therefore got to (A) only rather awkwardly through POE.