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

Comments

• 1 Like

  Bagelinthemorning-2-1-1 Core Member

  June 2021 476 karma

  Hey! I could look into it. Which preptest is this?
• Belle.law Member

  June 2021 edited June 2021 30 karma

  @Bagelinthemorning:
  Thank you so much! This is February 1997. It's in between the PT35 and PT36 modules on the syllabus
• 1 Like

  Bagelinthemorning-2-1-1 Core Member

  June 2021 476 karma

  Hey! No problem.

  Below was my thought process while doing the question..

  Paradox-using headlights all the time is safer compared to just using it when it is needed.
  But when they make it mandatory to use all the time, the collisions didn't decrease.

  Resolution-what if those who use the overhead light all the time do so because they are careful, which protects them from collisions? This means that it is not about the headlights but about the driving discipline of the people?

  C-the careful ones use headlights regardless. This explains why they were safe in the first place and it also explains why it did not make a difference when it was required for others.

  E-They required it only in places where it was poor. So if this was true, then it should have made a marginal difference, if not drastic, after the headlights were required. If it said night time, I would have paused. Because it could be argued that, because it was so dark, even headlights did not provide the appropriate visibility. However, daytime visibility should be mitigated with headlights. Furthermore, this wouldn't explain why those using headlights all the time did not get into many accidents. Even if it is select jurisdictions where this law was applied, what if there are people who applied headlights even before the law and were safe from accidents?

  Therefore, C is correct because it addresses both the premise on drivers that use headlights regardless and the lack of collision reduction after headlights became mandatory.

  Although some correct answers resolve the paradox by discounting the first premise, the strong resolutions give a reason for both phenomena.

  I also found that coming up with a resolution before looking at the answer choice helps me from getting sidetracked by wrong answer choices.

  Also, LSAT writers love to bring up driving and accidents (due to speed, seatbelts, and car type) in paradox questions. You'll find that most are resolved by behavioral qualities of the drivers (i.e. reckless drivers) than the other causes mentioned.
• Belle.law Member

  June 2021 30 karma

  Thank you so much for walking me through this! This is extremely helpful