Self-study
In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in a collision than are drivers who use headlights only when visibility is poor. ███ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████
Confusing Phenomenon
The stimulus tells us about an unexpected phenomenon. In places where it's optional to drive with headlights when visibility is good, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to get in a car crash. So we would expect that making headlights mandatory at all times would reduce car crashes, right? However, that's not the case: making headlights mandatory at all times doesn't affect car crash numbers at all.
Objective: Resolve the Confusion
The phenomenon in the stimulus is only confusing if we expect a causal relationship between using headlights at all times and lower rates of car crashes. So to resolve our confusion, we can give a different explanation for the correlation between headlight use and reduced car crashes. For example, maybe people who use headlights at all times are just safer drivers.
Another approach we could take is explaining that the law doesn't cause better headlight use. If people don't follow the law and keep driving without headlights, then making headlights mandatory at all times wouldn't improve safety. This would be true even if using headlights at all times truly does reduce car crashes.
14.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████
a
In jurisdictions where ███ ██ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████
We already know that drivers who voluntarily use headlights at all times get into fewer car crashes. What proportion of drivers follow that practice doesn't help to explain why making headlights mandatory at all times doesn't affect car crash numbers.
b
A law making ███ ██ ██████████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████ ██ ████████
If anything, (B) deepens our confusion by reducing the likelihood that people just ignore the law. We still need to explain why people who voluntarily use headlights at all times are less likely to be in car crashes, even though mandatory headlight use doesn't reduce car crash rates.
c
Only very careful ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ █████████
(C) gives us the alternative explanation we need for why drivers who voluntarily use headlights at all times are less likely to get in car crashes. If it's just because they're safe drivers, then it makes sense that making headlights mandatory at all times has no effect. It just doesn't make people safer drivers.
d
There are some █████████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████
The jurisdictions described in (D) are not related to the situation the stimulus discusses, so this doesn't help us resolve our confusion.
e
The jurisdictions where ███ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████
The stimulus discusses jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional during times of good visibility, and which then change their laws to make headlights mandatory at all times. Jurisdictions where headlights are already mandatory at all times aren't part of the comparison.
(E) does give a reason why some jurisdictions may make headlights mandatory at all times. However, it doesn't help explain why there's no increase in safety when other jurisdictions switch from headlights-optional to headlights-mandatory during times of good visibility.