PT20.S1.Q10 - premiums for automobile

skrishnan

Having a hard time with this one, Chose E during timed test and struggling to narrow in on an answer choice during BR.

I don't get why C is correct

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-20-section-1-question-10/

LSATcantwin

The conclusion of this question is:

“If this claim is true, then lives could be saved by banning red cars from the road all together.”

(The claim is that red cars are in accidents more often than other colors)

So this guy is saying if we don’t allow red cars on the road accidences will not occur as much. That doesn’t sound right does it?

C points to the weakness in his reasoning.

If the drivers who drive poorly all have a preference for red cars, and now they can’t get red cars, they will have to buy blue/green/black/whatever cars now. The poor driving will just be transferred from red cars to other colors and accidents won’t be prevented. It is saying the DRIVER is to blame for the accidents and not actually the red cars.

BinghamtonDave

The core of this question is something that has come up before. I believe understanding flaws and analyzing them goes a long way in improving LR scores. I think there are two complimentary ways to solve this question. First, there is the cookie-cutter way to solve this question. That is to say that there is a correlation in the premise and a causal relationship assumed followed by a prescription in the conclusion that assumes causation. The basic framework for this question is:
-Premise: Red cars are correlated with higher accidents (correlation)
-Assumption: Red cars cause these accidents (assumption of causation)
-Conclusion:If you take away the cause (red cars) you will have less effect (car accidents)

The cookie cutter way of solving this problem is to have this lesson in mind:
https://7sage.com/lesson/4-possible-explanations/

Once in awhile what I will do with a flaw question is take a step back and look at the premise-conclusion relationship with an eye towards common sense. This question just sounds odd in its reasoning. Odd to the common ear. The paint on a car causing an accident just sounds totally ridiculous. Perhaps the argument has attributed a cause that is actually simply correlated. Perhaps, there is another cause. If one did not catch the correlation/causation framework in this problem, there is still a chance to get this question correct by deferring to common sense. Are red cars driven by people wish to practice street racing at a much higher rate than the general population? Something along those lines intuitively sounds a bit more reasonable than the explanation offered. I consider this approach to be an intuitive cookie-cutter approach.

For an example of a question that plays on a similar pattern please see: June 2007 Section2 Question 21

David

skrishnan

@LSATcantwin Thank you, that makes complete sense to me after reading @BinghamtonDave 's reply. Initially, answer C seemed more like a weakening answer choice to me.

LSATcantwin

@skrishnan said:
@LSATcantwin Thank you, that makes complete sense to me after reading @BinghamtonDave 's reply. Initially, answer C seemed more like a weakening answer choice to me.

Interestingly enough flaw questions are, in a sense, weakening questions. If I point out a flaw in someones argument, doesn't that necessarily weaken it?

skrishnan

@LSATcantwin Yes! Usually, I just mechanically try to compartmentalize each question stem. I guess one has to remain flexible!