PrepTest 143

Incorrect. First, the stimulus is about actual safety, not a reputation for safety—we can't assume that SUVs have a reputation for safety. But even if we ignore that problem with this answer choice, this would suggest that not only are these cars safer, but they're driven more safely, thus making the reaction of the safety experts even more paradoxical.

Incorrect. There's no indication that fuel tank capacity is related to safety—if you were thinking it makes the car more likely to be dangerous in an accident, that's an assumption that's not warranted based on the stimulus!

Incorrect. This answer can be tempting—if you're safer in an SUV, but there are more people, can't that balance out and end up with more people injured? Not without knowing the relative accident rate of SUVs and other cars, and also whether these additional passengers otherwise would have taken a second vehicle, thus increasing the chances of an accident. There are too many assumptions to make this answer choice work.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
SUVs are safer for occupants in an accident, but a recent study of traffic fatalities has auto safety experts worried about the safety of SUVs.

Answer Anticipation:
SUVs are safer for their occupants, and yet auto safety experts are worried about more people driving SUVs. Definitely a paradox! There must be something about more SUVs on the road that would drive up accident rates and, in particular, fatalities, since that's what this paradox is specifically based on. Any answer that brings up a reason that SUVs increase fatalities/danger despite being safer for their occupants in a crash would resolve this.

While it would be perfectly fine to head to the answer choices with this anticipation, two specific possibilities jump out—one based on a trend on the LSAT, and another based on a close reading of the stimulus.

For the one based on a trend on the LSAT—while SUVs may be safer for occupants in an accident, it's possible that SUVs get into significantly more accidents. Even if they're a bit safer, if you're twice as likely to get in an accident, the odds may balance out and the SUVs may, overall, be more dangerous.

For the one based on a close reading—while SUVs may be safer for occupants, they may be deadlier towards the occupants of other vehicles. If someone who is in a small car and gets in an accident with an SUV, if that person is significantly more likely to suffer a fatality, that would raise the concern of auto safety experts.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights a reason that more SUVs on the road would be more dangerous, even if the passengers of the SUV are safer—people in other cars are less safe. This answer resolves the paradox, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
While it didn't end up leading to a correct answer in this question (though it was related to a wrong answer), a common scenario the LSAT brings up is safety in an accident vs. safety in getting into an accident. The safety of a vehicle is related to both, and the LSAT loves to compare cars on one metric and then jump to a conclusion about overall safety. Whenever car safety records are brought up, see if it's falling into this common trap.

Incorrect. This answer plays into a common answer on the LSAT—that while one type of car might be safer in an accident, it might be more likely to get into an accident. However, this answer removes that possibility—the SUV is just as likely as other cars to get into an accident—and so it makes the paradox worse.