Logical reasoning PrepTest 154 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. This isn't the issue, because no matter what the absolute numbers are, they're not comparable to the absolute numbers from Everest given that the two samples (French drivers & Everest climbers) are likely of drastically different sizes.

Incorrect. Also not the issue with this argument. You can't compare absolute traffic fatalities from any country to absolute Everest-climbing fatalities and get a valid conclusion. You must compare the percent, not the numeral.

Incorrect. This is outside the scope of the argument. We're not worried about figuring out if Everest could be made safer in the future. We just want to know how the argument alleging the dangers of mountain climbing have been exaggerated is fallacious.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Climbing Mount Everest isn't as dangerous as the media would have you believe! Just 200 people died there between 1922 and 2002, whereas 7,000 people were killed in traffic accidents in France in 2002 alone (What's up with the almost 20-year-old statistics, LSAC?).

Answer Anticipation:
Comparing total fatalities on Mt. Everest to total fatalities on an entire country's system of roadways? That's like saying exotic spiders must be more beloved pets than dogs, because the Topeka, Kansas animal shelter has only had 3 unwanted tarantulas surrendered this year, whereas thousands of unwanted dogs are available for adoption in New York City. Expect the correct answer choice to highlight that this is an invalid method of comparison. To truly compare the risks here, you'd need to know what percentage of Everest climbing attempts end in death, and compare that to the percentage of trips on French roads that end in death.

Answer Explanation:
A perfect articulation of the problem with the argument, and matches our anticipation nicely. You can't make this comparison without knowing the number of attempts at each activity, which would allow us to infer the mortality rate of each. If one in 20 attempts at Everest ends in death, but only one in 20,000 drives in France does the same, then Everest is clearly more dangerous.

Key Takeaway:
Be wary of any attempt to infer a relative, percentage-based comparison ("more" dangerous, "less" risky, "greater" safety) from an absolute numeral comparison. This is always a percent vs. numeral fallacy unless the sample sizes are known and identical.

Incorrect. This will tempt some students, but, no matter how many mountains we considered, we'd just end up with exactly the same issue: the absolute number of fatalities from two activities can't be compared unless the sample sizes are known.