Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 17

Incorrect. This answer doesn't discuss drivers who drive frequently, so it doesn't address the group the conclusion is about.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Car insurance premiums take risk factors into account (e.g., age; accident history)
Pivot - A person who drives more is more likely to get into an accident
Conclusion - Insurance companies should make people who drive more pay more

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is all about factoring in risk and, specifically, the risk of driving more frequently.

It is established as true that people who drive more frequently are more likely to get into an accident. And people who are at a higher risk of getting into an accident pay more.

However—and this is easy to miss—that's a comparative statement. It's comparing people who drive more frequently to people who drive less frequently. All else equal, the former group does have a higher risk of getting into an accident. But it isn't established that all else is equal. It's possible that those who drive more have an increased risk of being in an accident due to being on the road more frequently, but they're significantly better drivers because of all the practice, or because they know the roads they drive on and the traffic patterns on them very well.

If these individuals have factors that lower their risk of getting into an accident, then that would balance out the increased risk from being on the road more.

Let's find an answer bringing up a difference between the frequent and infrequent drivers that suggests the former group may get into accidents less frequently despite their more frequent trips.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant point of comparison between frequent and infrequent drivers. If the frequent drivers are more likely to follow the rules for safe driving, then they're less likely to get into accidents, and thus that may balance out the risk from their more frequent drives. As such, higher premiums may not be justified, weakening the conclusion.

Key Takeaway:
It's easy to overlook comparative language like "increases" or "more likely", but these do convey a comparison between different groups. When you see this language, it's important to consider if the comparison is complete. If not, you can anticipate that the answer will bring up another point of comparison!

Incorrect. This answer suggests a relevant difference that makes the frequent drivers more likely to get into an accident (because they're speeding). It suggests they should be paying higher premiums.

Incorrect. If they're driving more frequently and for longer distances, then that's even more reason to believe that their likelihood of getting into an accident is higher.

Incorrect. Yet another answer that brings up a way that frequent drivers are more likely to get into accidents, thus aligning with the argument.