Logical reasoning PrepTest 145 · Section 4 · Question 19

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon Ð Over 50% of pedestrians are struck while in crosswalks
Explanation Ð Crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security and they fail to look both ways

Answer Anticipation:
Arguments that present explanations for phenomena almost always fail to consider alternative explanations. Whenever you're presented with an explanation, alternatives should be the first place your brain goes.

Here, is there another reason why pedestrians might be more likely to be struck in crosswalks than all other places combined? Well, two jump out! First, pedestrians are probably more likely to be in crosswalks when crossing a street, thus purely by the numbers there will be more accidents there. Second, crosswalks are probably put in places where people are more likely to be trying to cross the street while there is incoming traffic—these areas are more dangerous and trafficked, explaining the higher accident rate.

These are just two explanations that we can look out for, but anything that serves as an alternative to this false sense of security explanation will be correct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights an alternative explanation—in areas with a lot of cars, pedestrians cross in crosswalks. It's not that the pedestrians are failing to look before crossing, it's that there are just more cars and more people there, so of course there are more accidents there.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever we're tasked with weakening an argument that presents an explanation for a phenomenon, start by immediately considering any alternative explanations.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't address the explanation—where people are struck, and why accidents happen there.

Incorrect. This answer plays into the provided explanation—that pedestrians are overly confident in their safety at these crosswalks.

Incorrect. This answer, if anything, eliminates an alternative explanation (the drivers are at fault, not the overconfident pedestrians), which would strengthen the argument.

Incorrect. This answer represents a principle that could be said to underlie this argument, so it strengthens it if anything.