PTF97.S1.Q14 - In jurisdictions where headlight use is optional

Ashley2018-1

After reading the stimulus, I was wondering why the overall number of collisions didn't decline even after using headlights was made mandatory and I thought E explained the discrepancy. If it is true that the jurisdictions that have mandatory headlight laws have naturally low visibility, wouldn't that explain why the overall number of collisions didn't decrease?

As for answer choice C, is it suggesting that the reason the collision rate is lower for drivers that use headlights is not because of the headlights but because they are more careful drivers? I read LSAC's official explanation and am still confused about these two choices.

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

mesposito886

Hey Ashley, good question. This stimulus doesn't contain an argument per se, but it low-key wants us to assume that actual use of headlights is the reason drivers who use headlights all the time are less likely to get into collisions than those who don't. The information we have, however, doesn't support this, because making headlight use mandatory does nothing to reduce the total number of collisions. So the right answer will give us an alternative explanation for why there seems to be a correlation between headlight use and likelihood of getting into a collision.

Answer choice e doesn't work because all it's saying is that for the jurisdictions that do require mandatory headlight use, visibility is often poor. Although this makes sense (if a place is often foggy then you should probably use your headlights) it doesn't address why people who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into a crash than those who don't.

You're right about answer choice c: it's saying that the reason for the lower likelihood of collisions for those who use headlights all the time isn't because they use their headlights, but because they're just more careful drivers. So if you make headlight use mandatory, it doesn't reduce the total number of collisions because the drivers who weren't using their headlights all the time before the change may still be engaging in other unsafe driving practices that are causing them to end up in more collisions.

Ashley2018-1

@mesposito886 said:
Hey Ashley, good question. This stimulus doesn't contain an argument per se, but it low-key wants us to assume that actual use of headlights is the reason drivers who use headlights all the time are less likely to get into collisions than those who don't. The information we have, however, doesn't support this, because making headlight use mandatory does nothing to reduce the total number of collisions. So the right answer will give us an alternative explanation for why there seems to be a correlation between headlight use and likelihood of getting into a collision.

Answer choice e doesn't work because all it's saying is that for the jurisdictions that do require mandatory headlight use, visibility is often poor. Although this makes sense (if a place is often foggy then you should probably use your headlights) it doesn't address why people who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into a crash than those who don't.

You're right about answer choice c: it's saying that the reason for the lower likelihood of collisions for those who use headlights all the time isn't because they use their headlights, but because they're just more careful drivers. So if you make headlight use mandatory, it doesn't reduce the total number of collisions because the drivers who weren't using their headlights all the time before the change may still be engaging in other unsafe driving practices that are causing them to end up in more collisions.

you mean despite the poor visibility, the risk of getting into an accident is still lower for people who choose to use their headlights?

mesposito886

@Ashley2018 said:

@mesposito886 said:
Hey Ashley, good question. This stimulus doesn't contain an argument per se, but it low-key wants us to assume that actual use of headlights is the reason drivers who use headlights all the time are less likely to get into collisions than those who don't. The information we have, however, doesn't support this, because making headlight use mandatory does nothing to reduce the total number of collisions. So the right answer will give us an alternative explanation for why there seems to be a correlation between headlight use and likelihood of getting into a collision.

Answer choice e doesn't work because all it's saying is that for the jurisdictions that do require mandatory headlight use, visibility is often poor. Although this makes sense (if a place is often foggy then you should probably use your headlights) it doesn't address why people who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into a crash than those who don't.

You're right about answer choice c: it's saying that the reason for the lower likelihood of collisions for those who use headlights all the time isn't because they use their headlights, but because they're just more careful drivers. So if you make headlight use mandatory, it doesn't reduce the total number of collisions because the drivers who weren't using their headlights all the time before the change may still be engaging in other unsafe driving practices that are causing them to end up in more collisions.

you mean despite the poor visibility, the risk of getting into an accident is still lower for people who choose to use their headlights?

Precisely. Answer choice e isn't relevant to the discrepancy. If daytime visibility is frequently poor, that would mean both drivers who use their headlights all the time and drivers who only use their headlights when visibility is poor were frequently using their headlights. Still, drivers who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into crashes. So the Highway Safety Department made headlight use mandatory all the time, but the total number of crashes don't decrease. If you're assuming that the poor visibility = less people can see the road = greater likelihood of crashes, you're still not answering why drivers who didn't always use their headlights at all times are more likely to be involved in a crash than those who always used their headlights at all times.

Ashley2018-1

@mesposito886 said:

@Ashley2018 said:

@mesposito886 said:
Hey Ashley, good question. This stimulus doesn't contain an argument per se, but it low-key wants us to assume that actual use of headlights is the reason drivers who use headlights all the time are less likely to get into collisions than those who don't. The information we have, however, doesn't support this, because making headlight use mandatory does nothing to reduce the total number of collisions. So the right answer will give us an alternative explanation for why there seems to be a correlation between headlight use and likelihood of getting into a collision.

Answer choice e doesn't work because all it's saying is that for the jurisdictions that do require mandatory headlight use, visibility is often poor. Although this makes sense (if a place is often foggy then you should probably use your headlights) it doesn't address why people who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into a crash than those who don't.

You're right about answer choice c: it's saying that the reason for the lower likelihood of collisions for those who use headlights all the time isn't because they use their headlights, but because they're just more careful drivers. So if you make headlight use mandatory, it doesn't reduce the total number of collisions because the drivers who weren't using their headlights all the time before the change may still be engaging in other unsafe driving practices that are causing them to end up in more collisions.

you mean despite the poor visibility, the risk of getting into an accident is still lower for people who choose to use their headlights?

Precisely. Answer choice e isn't relevant to the discrepancy. If daytime visibility is frequently poor, that would mean both drivers who use their headlights all the time and drivers who only use their headlights when visibility is poor were frequently using their headlights. Still, drivers who use their headlights all the time are less likely to get into crashes. So the Highway Safety Department made headlight use mandatory all the time, but the total number of crashes don't decrease. If you're assuming that the poor visibility = less people can see the road = greater likelihood of crashes, you're still not answering why drivers who didn't always use their headlights at all times are more likely to be involved in a crash than those who always used their headlights at all times.

So bottom line, even if e were true, the discrepancy would still be there since people who don’t normally turn on their headlights when they are not required to would be turning them on all the time due to the law?