Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PT Feb97 S1 Q14 Please help me understand this, my mind is not bendy enough

jcho1234jcho1234 Legacy Member
edited May 2020 in Logical Reasoning 108 karma

Why is "only very careful drivers use headlights when their use is not legally required" the answer here? I literally can't bend my mind to figure out why that changes anything after the headlight law went into effect and the resulting lack of collision reductions.

Comments

  • jeff.wongkachijeff.wongkachi Alum Member
    410 karma

    You scared the shit out of me for a second because I was like how do you have access to PT97 when the latest PT is 88 or 89? Then I realized you meant Feb1997.

  • SkoBuffsSkoBuffs Alum Member
    18 karma

    LOL Same, I freaked out

  • Achen165Achen165 Alum Member
    edited May 2020 656 karma

    (C) resolves the paradox/discrepancy by introducing an idea that there is another factor responsible, other than the headlights use or disuse, that cause the discrepancy between headlights use and accident rates.

    First let’s focus on the paradox- mandatory use of headlights not having any impact on the incidence of accidents, yet when optional, left to the driver’s discretion, for at least some subset of drivers, accident rate is less when used at all times, not just when there is rain/fog/etc. Hmmm....what could be special about this subset of drivers who opt to always use headlights, even when not required? If it’s not the law/requirement what else could account for the fact that when optional there are less accidents than when required?

    What if it’s not the requirement of headlights, whether they are used or not, that lowers the accident rate? What if the correlation is attributable to another cause...the cautiousness of certain drivers? Any acceptable answer choice would cater to the idea of an alternate cause (if not the headlights, then what— the car? The roads? The driver?). C identifies the drivers.

  • jcho1234jcho1234 Legacy Member
    108 karma

    @"jeff.wongkachi" said:
    You scared the shit out of me for a second because I was like how do you have access to PT97 when the latest PT is 88 or 89? Then I realized you meant Feb1997.

    OMG! SO SORRY!! I'm new at this. haha.

  • jcho1234jcho1234 Legacy Member
    108 karma

    @SkoBuffs said:
    LOL Same, I freaked out

    SORRY! My bad!

  • jcho1234jcho1234 Legacy Member
    108 karma

    @Achen013 said:
    (C) resolves the paradox/discrepancy by introducing an idea that it’s another factor responsible, other than the headlights use or disuse, that cause the discrepancy between headlights use and accident rates.

    First let’s focus on the paradox- mandatory use of headlights not having any impact on the incidence of accidents, yet when optional, left to the driver’s discretion, for at least some subset of drivers, accident rate is less when used at all times, not just when there is rain/fog/etc. Hmmm....what could be special about this subset of drivers who opt to always use headlights, even when not required? If it’s not the law/requirement what else could account for the fact that when optional there are less accidents than when required?

    What if it’s not the requirement of headlights, whether they are used or not, that lowers the accident rate? What if the correlation is attributable to another cause...the cautiousness of certain drivers? Any acceptable answer choice would cater to the idea of an alternate cause (if not the headlights, then what— the car? The roads? The driver?). C identifies the drivers.

    Phew! That's bonkers. You're amazing. TOTALLY clicked with your explanation. Thank you very much. !!

Sign In or Register to comment.