PT77.S4.Q19 - studies have shown that pedestrians

NorthernAtticusNorthernAtticus Alum Member
edited September 2017 in Logical Reasoning 79 karma

Hi guys,

It's possible that I'm overthinking this seemingly easy question, but I'm having a lot of trouble eliminating D.

My reasoning is that, if D were to be true and drivers are more alert at crosswalks, it wouldn't matter as much if pedestrians are less careful when crossing there. Even if I don't check both ways at the crosswalk, with D the driver's being more careful could offset this. This would directly weaken the argument.

The only thing I can think of is the fact that the answer says "drivers are generally most alert," which could mean that even if they pay the most attention at crosswalks it still isn't enough to offset the pedestrians not paying attention themselves. Maybe a driver's most alert state is still extremely distracted. Is this enough to eliminate this answer choice, or could there be something I'm missing?

Thanks!
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-77-section-4-question-19/

Comments

  • gloriaurbina7gloriaurbina7 Alum Member
    77 karma

    The question asks you to weaken the argument. Answer choice D actually strengthens the argument because it says that drivers are paying attention at crosswalks meaning that it is more probable that the argument above is correct (pedestrians get struck at crosswalks because of the sense of security and they fail to look both ways) rather then for reckless/ distracted drivers.

    If answer choice D had said "Drivers were paying less attention at crosswalks" then it would weaken the argument because it would provide another explanation for why pedestrians are struck in crosswalks more frequently.

  • NorthernAtticusNorthernAtticus Alum Member
    edited September 2017 79 karma

    Thanks - this makes sense, I totally get that it blocks an alternative explanation which does strengthen the argument in a sense. I guess in this specific context, though, I feel like even though the answer choice blocks an alternative explanation, it also blocks the author's explanation, which means it weakens more than it strengthens.

    Suppose instead of "most" the answer choice said, "Drivers almost always pay extremely close attention to pedestrians at or near crosswalks." It would be blocking an alternative explanation in the exact same way as the original AC (probably even moreso) but I feel like this rewording would completely undermine the author's argument in the process. The logic is the same, it's just a stronger version of the AC that doesn't include the "most" problem I mentioned in my OP.

  • gloriaurbina7gloriaurbina7 Alum Member
    77 karma

    Actually, I feel like it would still strengthen the argument.

    If drivers almost always pay extremely close attention to pedestrians at or near crosswalks, this could be a reason why they are less likely to look both ways before crossing the street. And furthermore it reaffirms that pedestrians feel more secure that cars will follow the signals at crosswalks. Another way you could tackle this question is to add all the premises together including answer choice D and see if the conclusion still makes sense.

    On the other hand, Answer choice A definitely gives you an alternative reason for why more pedestrians are struck by cars when crossing streets with crosswalks.

  • NorthernAtticusNorthernAtticus Alum Member
    79 karma

    You know that makes sense - I guess I was assuming that if drivers pay more attention, it is significantly less important to be careful when crossing, but that assumption probably isn't supported. Even if I'm paying attention, if someone suddenly walks out in front of me it might not help. Regardless that sort of wiggle room is absent in A which means it's definitely the better choice. Thanks for the help :)

Sign In or Register to comment.