Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.6K All Categories
- 28.2K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 192 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 36 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4.1K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 647 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
57.3.10 Columnist: The failure of
Accounts Playable
Live Sage ⭐
This question is difficult because once you spot the flaw, it is hard to put it into words, which is why I missed it. I couldn't figure out how any of the answer choices paraphrased the flaw, so I had to pick an answer and move on. I don't really see how C is the flaw and how A is worse than C.
Bike riders don't follow the rules of the road, and this is a causal factor in 25% of traffic accidents involving bikes. The lack of bike saftey equipment is also a causal factor in 25% of those accidents. Thus, bikes are partly responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bikes.
What I am looking for: I think the flaw is a math error. The conclusion says that 50+%, but we are given information about a causal factor being 25% and of those accidents a causal factor is 25%. Instead of additive, the relationship should be multiplicative. The conclusion should only talk about the percentage of bike accidents that included inadequate bike saftey equipment.
Answer A: This was the answer I chose, and I don't see how this doesn't adequately point out the flaw. Sure, you need to make an assumption that motorists are a factor in traffic accidents, but how is that not a reasonable assumption that the author overlooked? Additionally, since we conclude that 50+%, this is implying that less than 50% ("less than half") have some other cause. But, since we can't conclude anything about 50+%, this presumption is not justified. I don't see what is wrong with this one.
Answer B: No. We are to take the causal premises as truth.
Answer C: How is this the correct answer choice? Doesn't the conclusion say "at least partially responsible?" Thus, the argument DOES consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident? Additionally, the argument isn't talking about "all/given accidents;" it is limited to accidents involving bikes. How can the flaw be about "given" accidents?
Answer
We don't need a source.
Answer E: Who cares about the severity of injury?
Bike riders don't follow the rules of the road, and this is a causal factor in 25% of traffic accidents involving bikes. The lack of bike saftey equipment is also a causal factor in 25% of those accidents. Thus, bikes are partly responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bikes.
What I am looking for: I think the flaw is a math error. The conclusion says that 50+%, but we are given information about a causal factor being 25% and of those accidents a causal factor is 25%. Instead of additive, the relationship should be multiplicative. The conclusion should only talk about the percentage of bike accidents that included inadequate bike saftey equipment.
Answer A: This was the answer I chose, and I don't see how this doesn't adequately point out the flaw. Sure, you need to make an assumption that motorists are a factor in traffic accidents, but how is that not a reasonable assumption that the author overlooked? Additionally, since we conclude that 50+%, this is implying that less than 50% ("less than half") have some other cause. But, since we can't conclude anything about 50+%, this presumption is not justified. I don't see what is wrong with this one.
Answer B: No. We are to take the causal premises as truth.
Answer C: How is this the correct answer choice? Doesn't the conclusion say "at least partially responsible?" Thus, the argument DOES consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident? Additionally, the argument isn't talking about "all/given accidents;" it is limited to accidents involving bikes. How can the flaw be about "given" accidents?
Answer
We don't need a source.Answer E: Who cares about the severity of injury?