Self-study
Hey guys looking for some study buddies to hold each other accountable for LSAT prep!
senobiasanchez650
- Joined
- Apr 2025
- Subscription
- Free
Admissions profile
LSAT
Not provided
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided
Discussions
senobiasanchez650
Sunday, Aug 04 2024
did not mean to comment was trying to save something to my notes.
senobiasanchez650
Wednesday, Mar 13 2024
Could someone explain to me 3.1? I thought: But this is not a sustainable, long term solution was the conclusion.
I was between C and E. (explanation via PowerScore website):
The stimulus states that in optional headlight usage jurisdictions, drivers who use headlights all the time are less likely to be involved in an accident than drivers who use headlights only when the visibility is poor. But, when headlight usage is mandatory there is no reduction in the overall number of collisions.
That's a pretty tough paradox, because when most people look at the stimulus, they don't see a viable explanation for what is occurring. So, let's look at the two answer choices you asked about.
Answer choice (C): As you noted, this is the correct answer. From LSAC's explanation of the answer choice, this answer plays to the type of drivers in each group. In the headlight optional areas, they see it as a careful set of drivers who use those headlights at all times--thus, they are less likely to be involved in an accident. But, when everyone is forced to use headlights, that group expands to include the less careful drivers, and their driving is not made better by using headlights all the time. Thus, according to LSAC, this answer explains both sides of the paradox.
Answer choice (E): LSAC points out that this answer can explain the second part of the paradox, but that it "does not explain why, in jurisdictions where the use of headlights is optional, drivers who use headlights at all times are less likely to be involved in collisions." Thus, they see this failing to address the first sentence of the stimulus.
Hope this helps!