LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

  • Posts: 48
  • Joined: Sep 30, 2018
I chose A as my first answer then switched to C. I guess whether or not head injuries are higher than other types injuries isn't necessary to the argument. I chose A initially because I read for the same reason jurisdictions should also require helmets for horse back riders. The reason was for similar cost reductions, which was stated in the preceding sentence. Therefore, it is necessary that the horseback riding was somewhat draining tax funds or hurting taxpayers. I think I answered my own question.
 James Finch
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 943
  • Joined: Sep 06, 2017
Hi W. Hardy,

Exactly, the big difference between (A) and (C) is one of absolute ("is a drain") versus relative ("more costly"), a commonly tested idea on the LSAT. When the stimulus requires an absolute as it does here (a drain on taxpayer resources) then a relative comparison can only strengthen the conclusion, not be a necessary assumption.

Good Job!
  • Posts: 75
  • Joined: Feb 13, 2022
I had a problem identifying the conclusion, I went with the sentence with the classic conclusion indicator "Therefore, ...motorcycle helmet laws" and "For the same....." as a subsidiary conclusion. I had A but I was trying to piece together an assumption. I had A, C, and E as contenders.....I got rid of A because I incorrectly identified the conclusion. Even though the part about tax cost to taxpayers was spot on. I looked at E some more and I thought this can't be right even though it was tying a common sense point into the stimulus, however it was on the "outside" of the facts presented. I thought C was the answer.
The explanation of answer choice A is spot on. Ironic how I had it, but dismissed it. I find I am doing that often. I chalk it up to progress, I couldn't do this 6 month ago. LOL
Chris 8-)
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
Hi Chris,

Think about it this way---you correctly eliminated two of the answer choices. That's a great step!

If you misidentify the conclusion of an argument, you very well could be using good logic to find the correct answer choice. That's great.

In this case, there's another conclusion clue in the question stem. It asks you specifically about the conclusion on horseback riders. Don't leave out the information in the question stem. It can really help you to focus your attack on the right area in the stimulus.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.