Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit

Question

Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit, it would not have collided with the bus I was driving. I, on the other hand, was abiding by all traffic regulations—as the police report confirms. Therefore, although I might have been able to avoid the collision had I reacted more quickly, the bus company should not reprimand me for the accident.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the bus driver’s argument?

(A) If a vehicle whose driver is violating a traffic regulation collides with a vehicle whose driver is not, the driver of the first vehicle is solely responsible for the accident.

(B) A bus company should not reprimand one of its drivers whose bus is involved in a collision if a police report confirms that the collision was completely the fault of the driver of another vehicle.

(C) Whenever a bus driver causes a collision to occur by violating a traffic regulation, the bus company should reprimand that driver.

(D) A company that employs bus drivers should reprimand those drivers only when they become involved in collisions that they reasonably could have been expected to avoid.

(E) When a bus is involved in a collision, the bus driver should not be reprimanded by the bus company if the collision did not result from the bus driver’s violating a traffic regulation.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

We’re asked to identify a principle that “most helps to justify” the bus driver’s argument. “Justify” means “prove.” So we’re on the bus driver’s side, and we’re
trying to prove her conclusion. Her conclusion is, “The bus company should not reprimand me.”
To strengthen an argument, we should look at the evidence for weaknesses:
 
 The garbage truck was speeding. 
 If the garbage truck wasn’t speeding, I wouldn’t have hit it. 
 I was abiding by all traffic regulations. 
 I might have been able to avoid the collision if I had reacted more quickly.

That last one is actually not a “helping” fact. Things would be better for the bus driver if that last bit were untrue, right?

The biggest weakness in the argument is that there is nothing to justify the idea that the bus company “should not reprimand” under these circumstances. It’s a giant hole in the argument. To prove our case, we simply  must  connect the “should not reprimand” part in the conclusion to the facts that we already have. There are several ways to do this, since we have several facts.

Imagine how much stronger the case would be if the law said, “Any time someone else was speeding, you should not be reprimanded.” Or, “Any time you would have avoided an accident if the other party hadn’t been speeding, you should not be reprimanded.” Or, “Any time you were not yourself speeding, you should not be reprimanded.” Or, “Any time you were obeying the traffic regulations you should not be reprimanded.”

Any one of these laws would take evidence we already have and connect it, directly, to our desired conclusion. If any of these four things were the law, we would be sure to win our case. Let’s see if we can find an answer choice that’s exactly like one of these, or if not, that does the same thing as these do.

A) This is tempting, but proving that the garbage truck is “solely responsible” for an accident isn’t necessarily the exact same thing as saying that our bus driver can’t “be reprimanded.” One  could  make the case that if the other guy is “solely responsible,” then nobody else can be reprimanded. But that’s an assumption, isn’t it? I’d rather have an answer that directly connects our facts to the desired conclusion.

B) Nope. We gotta be really careful here. The police report confirmed that our driver was not speeding, and that the other driver  was  speeding. But that doesn’t mean the police report confirms that the collision was “completely the fault” of the driver of the other vehicle. Our driver could have reacted quicker and possibly avoided the accident, right? So maybe the police report says, “Both drivers were partially at fault,” even if it says the bus driver was obeying all the laws.

C) Nah. We want a premise that says violating —> reprimand. This premise says violating —> reprimand. Those aren’t the same thing. If you don’t understand this, please shoot me an email, because it’s a  really  important concept.

D) Nope. This doesn’t help us at all, because we don’t know whether or not the bus driver could have “reasonably been expected to avoid” the accident in question.

E) Since our driver didn’t violate any traffic regulations, the collision cannot have resulted from our driver’s violating a traffic regulation. So if E is the rule, then our bus driver can’t be reprimanded. Which is our desired outcome. This one connects our facts more directly to our conclusion than A did.

So our answer is E.

Nidzo · Answer

A) This choice is too broad. We are not concerned with all drivers, just bus drivers. This choice also does not prevent the bus driver from being reprimanded by the company.  Incorrect

B) The police report of the accident confirms that the bus driver was abiding by all traffic regulations, not that it was completely the fault of the other driver.  Incorrect

C) The bus driver never caused the collision. This choice only stipulates when a driver should be reprimanded, not when he/she shouldn't be.  Incorrect

D) This choice would nullify the bus driver's reasoning, as he could have possibly prevented the collision and thus should be reprimanded.  Incorrect

E) This choice validates the driver's reasoning nicely. It focuses only on whether or not the bus driver obeyed all traffic regulations when the collision happened, and has he did, should not be reprimanded by the company.  Correct

Answer E

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER SCORE

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)

The conclusion of the bus driver’s argument is that the bus company should not reprimand him for the accident because he obeyed all traffic regulations. However, we also know that the bus driver might have been able to avoid the accident had he reacted quicker. The answer choices in this Principle question are much less abstract than many Principle questions. However, the correct answer choice still needs to apply to the facts in the stimulus and support the bus driver’s contention that he should not be reprimanded, despite the fact that he could have avoided the collision.

Answer Choice (A): If this answer choice is true, it establishes that the garbage truck driver is solely  responsible  for the accident. That alone does not prevent the bus driver from being  reprimanded  for his failure to avoid it. This is a Shell Game answer, as it supports a similar conclusion that is still different from the one contained in the stimulus.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is close, but does not quite fit the facts of the stimulus. The answer states that a bus driver should not be reprimanded if a police report confirms the collision was completely the fault of the other driver. However, the police report in the stimulus only confirms that the bus driver did not violate any traffic regulations. This does not mean that the collision is  completely  the fault of the other driver, as we have some evidence that the bus driver could have avoided the collision. Since the answer does not accurately address the facts in the stimulus, it is incorrect.

Answer Choice (C): This principle establishes when a company should reprimand a driver, not when they  should  not reprimand a driver. Also, the bus driver in the stimulus did not violate any traffic violations. Much like answer choice (B), this answer choice also fails to properly address the facts of the stimulus.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice provides a sole criterion for reprimanding drivers—their failure to avoid a collision that they reasonably could have been expected to avoid. The contrapositive of this answer choice shows that if a driver could not have been reasonably expected to avoid the accident, then he  should not  be reprimanded. Unfortunately, the facts suggest the bus driver  might  have been able to avoid the collision. Therefore, it seems reasonable that he could have avoided the accident and so this principle does not help the bus driver’s argument.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice states that if the bus driver did not violate any traffic regulations, then the bus driver  should not  be reprimanded. Here, we know the bus driver did not violate any traffic regulations, regardless of whether he could have avoided the collision or not. So, this principle supports the bus driver’s conclusion that he should not be reprimanded.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Bus driver: Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards