PrepTest 101

[lcid:3501] Prep Test 101 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

In Australia the population Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Bizarro / Cause & Effect / Weaken Questions

Stimulus Summary

Phenomenon - In Australia, the driving age population went up, but traffic fatalities went down
Explanation - Australia has more skillful drivers

Answer Anticipation

This passage falls into a common pattern - it brings up a specific phenomenon (here, actually, two phenomena), and then it concludes an explanation for the statistics cited.
Here, the phenomena are that there are more driving-age people in Australia and yet traffic fatalities went down. One might expect them to go up with more people able to drive, but that’s not what happened.
There are many explanations for this, but the argument settles on one - that the drivers are more skillful. As such, any alternative explanation will weaken this argument, and any answer choice that raises one can be eliminated in this Bizarro Weaken question. Let’s not spend time brainstorming potential answers (since there are at least four possible alternatives) and instead head to the answer choices with that in mind.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Three years ago, a Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer brings up an alternative explanation for the decline in fatalities - it’s not more skillful drivers, but rather more people wearing seat belts.

  2. B
    Five years ago, Australia Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    This answer brings up an alternative explanation for the decline in fatalities - it’s not more skillful drivers, but rather safer roads.

  3. C
    Because of increases in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This answer brings up an alternative explanation for the decline in fatalities - it’s not more skillful drivers, but rather a decline in driving (fewer people on the roads for less time would statistically lead to fewer fatalities).

  4. D
    The number of hospital Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer brings up an alternative explanation for the decline in fatalities - it’s not more skillful drivers, but rather more numerous hospitals which would mean people in accidents could get to one faster and thus be more likely to live.

  5. E
    In response to an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This answer strengthens the explanation by explaining how it happened. If Australia instituted a mandatory driver education program right as the numbers of fatalities started going down, then that would suggest that the drivers were becoming more skillful (due to the education). Since this answer strengthens the argument, it doesn’t weaken it, and it is therefore correct.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why A? 1 reply

    Started by Brianna

  • Why is the answer not D? 2 replies

    Started by jingjingxiao11111@gmail.com

View all discussions Start a discussion