Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 11

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
Antilock brakes have reduced the number of multi-car collisions, but ending their use will save lives.

Answer Anticipation:
This Paradox question has a shift about halfway through that we should be aware of. It starts by bringing up a claim—that antilock brakes would significantly decrease multi-car accidents and thus save lives. Normally, we'd expect the paradox to be that this didn't pan out. However, here, the Activist notes that it did reduce multi-car collisions.

That said, she does believe that this brake system isn't saving lives. In fact, she believes that, despite their effect of lowering the rate of multi-car collisions, it'd be safer for cars not to have this feature.

As such, we should look for an answer highlighting another effect of antilock brakes that increases the likelihood of people dying in a car accident.

Answer Explanation:
If antilock brakes have the unintended effect of lowering the rate of seatbelt use, then that explains why someone would believe that they're unsafe, despite lowering the overall multi-car accident rate. In bringing up another effect of a given change that has the opposite effect of the one noted in the stimulus, this answer rationalizes the Activist's recommendation and thus resolves the paradox.

Key Takeaway:
Always be sure to identify the true paradox in Paradox questions. Harder ones will try to distract you from that paradox with "fake" paradoxes, or paradoxes that are resolved in the stimulus. If you "fall" for one of these, then you'll likely pick a trap answer.

Incorrect. While this may be true in some circumstances, it's accepted as true that there are others where the antilock brakes do prevent accidents, so this answer doesn't resolve the paradox. (And this is assuming that the speed of stopping is the relevant factor.)

Incorrect. If anything, this makes the paradox worse. Inexperienced drivers would be the ones most likely to get into accidents, so providing them with a safety feature should make things safer.

Incorrect. The debate is over the safety of the brakes, not their cost. Without tying the high cost into safety in some way, this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. Since we know that antilock brakes are effective in preventing multi-car accidents, this answer establishes that they're also effective in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents, making the paradox even worse—they seem to really increase safety, so why recommend against them?