Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A politician argues for a ban on car phones because they cause dangerous distractions and a law would actually stop people from using them, thereby improving public safety.

Conclusion: The bill making car phone use while driving illegal should be passed.

Reasoning: The bill is motivated by safety, car phones distract drivers and threaten safety, and making them illegal would successfully deter their use.

Analysis: This is a Sufficient Assumption question, so we need a premise that, if added, would 100% guarantee the conclusion is true. The politician has shown that the bill would be effective (deterrence) and that it serves a good purpose (safety). However, we lack a moral or legal 'bridge' that says we *must* adopt a bill just because it improves safety. Look for a conditional statement that connects the evidence (improving safety/deterring dangerous behavior) directly to the conclusion (the bill should be adopted).

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

13.

The argument's main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Correct Answer
D
D supplies exactly the needed bridge: if any law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted, then given the premises (illegality deters use, which reduces distraction and the safety threat), the conclusion that the bill should be adopted follows.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep