PT130.S3.Q22 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The columnist concludes that crossing with the light is more dangerous than crossing against it. As support, she cites recent studies and insurance statistics which show that more pedestrians are killed every year when crossing with the light than when crossing against it.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing amounts with percentages. The columnist assumes that a greater amount of people dying implies a greater risk. She ignores the possibility that a much larger number of people overall may cross with the light.

For example, maybe 100 people cross with the light and 10 of them die, while 10 people cross against it and 8 of them die. In this case, 10% of people crossing with the light die, while 80% crossing against it die, meaning that crossing against the light is much more dangerous, even though a smaller number of people die.

We have no reason to believe that the recent studies or insurance statistics are likely to be biased in their reporting.

Like (C), the columnist never actually establishes a correlation between crossing with the light and dying. Also, her conclusion doesn’t assume that crossing with the light causes death, just that crossing with the light is more dangerous than crossing against it.

Like (B), the columnist never actually establishes a correlation between crossing with the light and dying, nor does she draw a causal conclusion.

The columnist’s conclusion is about crossing with the light in North American cities, which is the same environment where the studies took place. The number of deaths from crossing with or against the light in other environments is irrelevant.

The columnist overlooks the fact that more people may cross with the light than against it. She concludes that crossing with the light is riskier just because more people die, but crossing against the light could actually be more dangerous, even with fewer deaths.

PrepTest 130 - Section 3 - Question 22

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action