PrepTest 127

[lcid:3604] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Provinces and states with Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Facts

Valid or Flawed

NA

Question Type

Paradox Questions

Stimulus Summary

Locations with the toughest car safety laws have higher average accident rates. Experts maintain car safety laws work.

Answer Anticipation

Remember that we’re trying to resolve the paradox, not deny a part of it. In these expert-based Paradox questions, it’s easy to think the answer will say that the experts are wrong. That’s a trap! The correct answer will show how the experts can be correct despite the facts seemingly contradicting their view.
So how can it be that car safety laws make roads and drivers safe, but the places with the strongest laws are also the places with the above-average accidents?
This is actually a common question on the LSAT. And it comes down to what the actual effect of these safety laws is said to be. There’s no one claiming that they make roads safe - the claim is that they make roads safer. So an area can have a higher-than-average number of accidents, but a much lower accident rate than they would have without such laws.
To put it another way, what areas are most likely to have a high accident rate? Places with a large population and a lot of cars. What areas are most likely to have stringent car safety laws? Places with a large population and a lot of cars, and thus a high accident rate. The laws are in place to lower this high accident rate to a more reasonable level.
The correct answer should highlight this connection - the accident rate is higher-than-average, but much lower than it would be without these laws because the roads in these areas are just more dangerous/there are more people on the road.
One more note before we head into the answers - it’d be easy to go down the route of thinking about that “per kilometer driven” and try to come up with some explanation about length of the average trip, or the average miles driven, etc… But that’s too math-y to be correct. That’s in there to rule out those answers, so let’s not worry too much about anything in that vein.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Annual safety inspections ensure Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer suggests that the car safety requirements keep tires in good shape, suggesting that there should be fewer accidents, so it doesn’t resolve the paradox of how areas with rules such as these have a higher-than-average accident rate.
  2. B
    Drivers often become overconfident Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer suggests that the car safety requirements actually make the roads less safe as people become overconfident and drive more recklessly. However, this would mean that the experts are wrong in their claim that such requirements make the roads safer, and so we have to eliminate it. The correct answer will explain how the paradoxical information can coexist - it won’t state that half of the paradox is actually wrong.
  3. C
    The roads in provinces Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem
    This answer resolves the paradox. The places with these stringent car safety requirements are more congested and thus more dangerous. So the car safety requirements are bringing down the accident rate from what it would be without the laws while still leaving it higher than areas with less congested roads that are therefore less dangerous.
  4. D
    Psychological studies show that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer aligns with car safety requirements making people safer drivers, so it aligns with the view of highway safety experts, but it doesn’t explain the higher-than-average accident rate.
  5. E
    Provinces and states with Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer is trying to get you to go down a math rabbit hole of thinking about the per kilometer driven stat and the total number of kilometers of road. That’s not going to be correct because the LSAT doesn’t want you to do math. Additionally, the total amount of road isn’t relevant - it’s the amount of driving done. It could be that the vast majority of those roads are never traveled on!

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion