PT75.S1.Q06 - sport utility vehicles (SUVs)

ChiTownGuy

Question about this question and the answers, particularly C and D. The question is a resolve the paradox in which we are told that auto safety experts are concerned about the "increasing popularity" of SUV vehicles, after being told that they are "safer" than small cars in the even of a accident, and that experts have cited their increasing pop as an alarming trend after looking at traffic fatality statistics.

My thinking for C was that if there are more people inside of an SUV, than all other things equal, there would be more people involved in a accident with an SUV than involving a small car, so that would increase the probability of an individual sustaining injuries and/or fatalities in any given accident involving an SUV vs. a small car.

JY in explaining C, comes up with an equation involving this answer which is completely out of left field and that I have no clue where he gets. With D, the correct answer says that their are more fatalities on average between collisions involving small cars and SUV's. My question is that why would the increasing popularity of SUV be an alarming trend, if it is the case that more fatalities occur on average between SUV and malls cars, then wouldn't the increasing pop of the SUV be a good thing, because it would decrease the proportion of SMALL cars and increase the proportion of SUV because b people are dring them instead of msall cars, thereby decreasing the likelihood of collision between small and large cars and lowering the average number of fatalies by decreasing the overall frequency of such occurrences?

Now I'm anticipating that someone will say that "just because they (SUV) are more popular that doesn't mean people will more instead of small cars, but then I don't know how you are supposed to interpret that fact then. Are we supposed to thing that there are therefore more SUV IN ADDITION to small cars on the road now, and that there are now a lager number of cars on the road in total, and that every the popularity means that no one will in fact drive a SUV INSTEAD of a small cars. Is that an invalid interpretation of "assumption". TIA
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-75-section-1-question-06/

midna_twili

C doesn't help explain since it doesn't establish that the SUVs are actually involved in accidents. These extra passengers could all be safe.
D establishes that SUVs are tied to fatal accidents. So more SUVs will lead to more fatalities. And more fatalities would constitute an alarming trend.

ChiTownGuy

No, I don't agree with that at all. D says that there is a higher number of fatalities on average in an accident involving small cars and SUV, it doesn't say whether the people are killed are in the small car or the SUV. So then if you assume, like you did, that the people being killed are in small are, wouldn't it be better for there to be more SAFER SUV's on the road, so that the likelihood of an accident between a small car and SUV decreases.

Positive

Hmm I got this question wrong too. I went for C. Upon reviewing questions again, I realized for resolve & reconcile questions, it is really helpful to see the apparent tension at an exact point.

If you only look at the experts' conclusion, C, I think, will definitely be an answer (for a normal dialogue in real life).

However, with the premise above, we have to see that the tension is not just on the experts' conclusion, but it is SUVs are safer than smaller cars vs. the increasing popularity of SUVs is an alarming trend.

Assuming that C is a correct answer definitely leans toward the experts' conclusion only. P1 said that SUVs are safer. Does it matter if SUVs tend to carry more passengers? No. (if we want to say yes, we need to ignore P1)

D, on the other hand, admits both premises with equal consideration.

I find what you are concerned with D (safer SUV=better trend) is a value judgement. What about crushed smaller cars and their passengers? Say it is 5:5 ratio on the roads between SUV and smaller car. An increase in SUV ratio to 7 makes it 7:3. Someone can call it a better situation because there are more number of safer cars. But someone can see it as an alarming trend because the rest 3 will have a higher chance of getting crushed.

I think what makes this question confusing is how this question stem is worded. It looks like it is begging for a back up for the experts only.