Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 1

Incorrect. The argument is about the relative safety of day and night swimming, so even if some sharks hunt at night, if most of them hunt during the day, the argument still holds.

Incorrect. There's no source noted, so this argument can't rely on an unreliable one.

Incorrect. The conclusion isn't about when people should swim, but rather when it's safer to swim. While anxiety might play into swimming safety, it isn't established as doing so, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument does provide justification for believing that the popular opinion of when it's safe to swim is wrong—that all recent shark attacks have happened when most people think it's safer to swim.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
People swim during the day because they fear night shark attacks, but all shark attacks have happened during the day, so it's more dangerous to swim during the day.

Answer Anticipation:
Of course all the shark attacks happen during the day—that's when you just told us everyone is swimming! If almost no one is swimming at night, then shark attacks would be significantly less likely to happen then because there are so few people in the water. This argument is akin to saying that almost all car accidents happen on roads, so it must therefore be safer to drive through houses.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the issue with the argument. What is relevant to the determination of safety is the rate of shark attacks—how many people are attacked compared to how many people swim. If people are almost all only swimming during the day, then the lack of shark attacks might not be a factor of safety but rather of opportunity.

Key Takeaway:
While it's a bit buried under the language here, this argument, at its heart, commits a percent and amount flaw. The number of attacks is used to justify that one thing is safer than another, but safety is inherently about the rate of accidents/danger, not the total number of accidents. That jump is a common fallacy on the LSAT, even when it's buried a bit under other language.