PrepTest 147

Incorrect. If people almost always ignored these markings and lights, then that might explain why the accident rate didn't go up—whether those safety features are there or not, people aren't following them. However, it doesn't explain why accidents would go down with them removed.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Paradox

Stimulus Summary:
All the safety equipment was removed from a busy street, but despite traffic levels staying the same the accident rate went down a lot.

Answer Anticipation:
When a change has an unexpected outcome, the correct answer to a Paradox question will frequently bring up something else that was affected by the change to explain it.

Here, the street lights and markings were removed from a street. If nothing else changed, then the accident rate should have skyrocketed as people were driving without any guidance as to when to drive through an intersection or stop for pedestrians. However, the accident rate decreased—we have to explain not only why it didn't increase, but why it went down.

So something else must have changed when these safety features went away that could explain how people ended up driving safer. One possibility jumps to mind—if people are aware that all safety features have been removed from a street, they may very well drive safer to compensate. If we're driving down a road that we know has no markings or traffic lights, we know that we'd drive a bit more slowly to make sure we didn't get into an accident.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights an effect of removing these safety features relevant to the decrease in accidents. If people were driving more cautiously, then they may avoid accidents that they would otherwise have caused even with the safety features on the road.

Key Takeaway:
When a change has an unexpected outcome, look for another effect of the change that is relevant to the outcome. Answers that don't highlight a second change are almost always going to be wrong.

Incorrect. If most drivers weren't aware of their removal, they must not have been very prominent to begin with! In any case, a lack of awareness of a change might explain why it didn't have a given effect, but here, there was an effect—accidents went down. This answer doesn't address that decrease in accidents.

Incorrect. Great, but this stimulus is about the safety benefits, so this answer doesn't address the paradox.

Incorrect. This answer might establish that the drivers were aware of the change and could prepare for it, but that, at best, would explain why the impact of it on accident rates wouldn't go up, not why they actually went down. Without tying this in to preparation that led to safer driving, this answer doesn't resolve the paradox.