PT F97.S1.Q14 - I am confused here as to why AC E does not work

EB207082

PrepTest February 1997 - Section 1 - Question 14 - AC E #help

I am confused here as to why AC E does not work. Although I have my own reasons, I am just looking for some confirmation on my thinking here since there is no explanation posted for this question yet.

From my understanding of the passage, we see no difference in the number of collisions at place that used to require headlights only when visibility was poor which then switched to having headlights mandatory at all time.

E seems to resolve this paradox. If a place used to only require headlights be turned on in poor visibility, but visibility is also poor all of the time, then we would expect everyone's headlights to be on all of the time. Thus, implementing a new law that makes it mandatory for headlights to be on regardless of visibility would have no impact on this, resolving the paradox.

Is the reasoning for E being incorrect the use of the word "frequently" rather than "always"? Thus implying that there may still be SOME difference? I can definitely see that being the case.

As for AC C being correct, is this due to AC C establishing that the use of headlights has no causal effect on collisions, and instead is simply case of correlation between safe drivers and headlight usage? It would then logically follow that increasing the use of headlights would actually have no impact on collisions, since now we will just have the unsafe drivers also using headlights at all time.

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

TwentyStarGeneral

So, in a RRE problem, there are two phenomena (literally, things we can see/observe) that APPEAR contradictory (e.g., a paradox). We are looking for an answer choice that either could be a CAUSE of both things being true at the same time or some kind of explanation as to why both could be true at the same time.

In this case, the two seemingly contradictory facts are

(1) people who voluntarily use their headlights at all times have a lower rate of accidents than people who do not.

(2) in cases where this was made a mandatory law, the rate of accidents did not decrease (as it would be expected to do).

My first thought was that the effect observed in part 1 could have an alternate cause -- maybe people who voluntarily keep their headlights on at all times are just more cautious drivers and, thus, they get in fewer accidents.

It turns out that (C) captures this idea. This then explains why (1) happened the way it did and (2) happened the way it did. It's the real cause behind the apparent cause.

On these questions, you want to watch out for answer choices that eliminate one phenomenon or only give details on one phenomenon.

(E) is wrong for two reasons:
1. It "seems" to addresses why it doesn't work in (2), but not why it does work in (1) -- doesn't explain the decrease of accidents in (1). It also doesn't explain why there wasn't any reduction at all when it became mandatory in (2). Even if that is the case, we would expect there to be some benefit of accident reduction when it was made mandatory and, presumably, more people started doing it than before.
2. To accept this answer, we would have to ASSUME that it wasn't the case the daytime visibility was poor in the areas in which (1) was observed. The stimulus gives us no information to that effect. It just says, "in areas where it is option when the visibility is good..." It never tells us how often that is, it could be once every 50 years or never. Whenever we have to add in an assumption like this to make an answer choice work, the answer choice is wrong. The only exception is when it's a very obvious, undeniable "common sense assumption." This would be my rock solid reason for elimination.

JesseWeNeedToCook

Your explanation for Answer choice C is spot on all non-mandatory headlight users are careful drivers, explains pretty easily why they are less likely to get in a collision, and why forcing other people to use headlights doesn't affect the overall numbers.

Answer choice E could be pointed out as incorrect for a few reasons, but here is what I think the main reason is:

We need to marry the idea that drivers with headlights on are less likely to be involved in a collision that driver's who only use them in , and that forced headlight laws (FHL) don't affect the overall numbers.

Answer Choice E does a great job trying to explain why the FHL don't impact the overall collision numbers, but it does an abosulely horrible job explaining why individuals with headlights are less likely to be hit if there lights are on all the time.

I think there is couple things that might have made this answer choice attractive from your statement above:

1. Misinterpretation of the text

- "If a place used to only require headlights be turned on in poor visibility" Laws conditional on the visibility is not mentioned in the passage. The only thing mentioned is that people with their lights on 100% of the time, are less likely to crash than those with them only on during poor visibility. Additonally unconditional headlight laws are mentioned.

1. Translating logic errors

- Frequently = sometimes. If there is a tornado one in every 100 days, that would be pretty frequent. If a extiction event meteor struck earth every 5,000 years. That would be pretty frequent.

1. Missing keywords / minor assumptions

- daytime visibility, completly ignores nightime visibility
- amount of driver's / amount of driving in the areas remains constant