LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 10

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT105 S2 Q10	+LR +Exp	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR	A 0% 150 B 1% 159 C 79% 166 D 3% 157 E 17% 160	129 144 159	+Medium	145.978 +SubsectionMedium

Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives, based on the claim that a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents than are cars of any other color.

Identify and Describe Flaw

This is a cookie-cutter “correlation does not imply causation” flaw, where the author sees a positive correlation and then assumes that one thing causes the other, without ruling out alternative hypotheses. She assumes that red cars cause car accidents simply because more red cars are involved in accidents. She goes on to conclude that banning red cars could save lives.

She overlooks the possibility that some other, underlying factor could be causing the correlation— maybe there’s something that causes people to buy red cars and to be involved in car accidents.

accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher-risk clients

Irrelevant— even if she does accept this, it has nothing to do with her argument. Her argument is about the correlation between red cars and accidents; insurance company rates are just context.

fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars of other colors

Irrelevant— she may not consider repair costs, but this isn’t the flaw because repair costs don’t affect her argument. She hypothesizes that banning red cars could save lives; it doesn’t matter how much they cost to repair.

ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars

This describes an alternative hypothesis that the author ignores. She assumes red cars cause accidents, without considering that some other, underlying factor may be causing the correlation— maybe reckless drivers just like red cars and that’s why more red cars are in accidents.

does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents

Irrelevant— the exact percentage of red cars doesn’t matter, since we already know that “a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents” than cars of other colors.

makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life

The author never makes this assumption. She just assumes that some car accidents result in some loss of life. Based on this assumption and the assumption that red cars cause accidents, she concludes that banning red cars could save lives.

LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 10

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel