Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 17

Incorrect. If there was another change that is likely to result in an increase in traffic fatalities, that could offset the benefits of the seatbelt laws.

Incorrect. If the city expanded the definition of traffic fatalities, then there are more deaths that count for that statistic now than two years ago, so the fact that it stayed the same suggests that there was a decrease in the subset that used to make up the entire category.

Incorrect. If there was an increase in traffic, then there would be an expected increase of fatal accidents (more people on the road would naturally lead to more accidents just by the pure numbers of it) that could offset the benefits of the seatbelt laws.

Incorrect. If people aren't following the law, then the city wouldn't see the law's benefits.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Bizarro Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Report - Seat belt laws cause traffic fatalities to decrease
Certain City - Seat belt laws were passed two years ago, but there's been no decline in traffic fatalities per year

Answer Anticipation:
This Paradox question deals with a given change, and the outcome of that change compared to the expected outcome. This is a common pattern on Paradox questions we can look out for!

Here, the given change was the new seatbelt laws. It was expected—based on expert reports—to decrease traffic fatalities, but instead the city saw no changes in the number of traffic deaths.

First, an answer that won't be correct—the experts were somehow wrong with their assessment. Remember—in a Paradox question, we're tasked with resolving the paradox, not explaining it away.

With that out of the way, we can get back to the change/unexpected outcome pattern. When that shows up in a Paradox question, the paradox is almost always resolved with a separate change that concurred with the first and explains the unexpected outcome. So any other change that went along with the seatbelt laws but would cause you to expect an increase in traffic fatalities will serve to resolve the issue here. Those answers will be wrong in the Bizarro question, so let's not anticipate specific ones since there will be many!

Answer Explanation:
This answer seems to back up the report—that wearing a seatbelt saves lives since a minority of fatalities were wearing seatbelts. However, it doesn't do anything to explain why the laws—despite the reports establishing they make people safer—didn't do so in this city. This answer may align with the paradox, but it doesn't explain it! It also doesn't establish that this wasn't true before the seatbelt laws were passed, so we don't know if this is a change.

Key Takeaway:
When a Paradox question introduces a change with an unexpected outcome, expect answers to deal with other changes that can explain the actual results.