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

Target time: 1:45

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 ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView
Choices
Curve Question
Difficulty
Psg/Game/S
Difficulty
Explanation
PT12 S1 Q19
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
A
1%
158
B
73%
166
C
13%
161
D
4%
156
E
10%
159
144
154
164
+Harder 147.398 +SubsectionMedium

This is a strengthening question, as the question stem asks: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

The stimulus starts by telling us that the rate at which children aged 4 and under use safety seats has doubled within the last 8 years. Good to hear! The next sentence begins with the claim that this increased usage of safety seats has prevented child fatalities. This is the conclusion of our argument. The sentence continues by conceding that it is true that child fatalities have risen by 10% during the same period that safety seat usage has increased, but attributes this to a 20% increase in the number of serious accident.

This author’s conclusion is that the safety seats are working—the increase in their usage has prevented fatalities. However, the fact that child fatalities have actually increased during the exact same period is a big problem for this position. The author’s defends his safety seats are working conclusion by pointing to the increase in accidents—it’s not that safety seats aren’t preventing fatalities, its just that there are a lot more opportunities for people to die. The issue with this defense is we have no idea much of the increase in serious automobile accidents involve children. Let’s look at the answer choices and see which answer strengthens the author’s position:

Answer Choice (A) Irrelevant. We are interested in how the number of children aged 4 and under killed could have increased in the same period that safety seat usage increased and prevented fatalities.

Correct Answer Choice (B) This strengthens the argument by making the 20% increase in serious accidents a much better defense of the safety seats are working conclusion. If serious accidents went up 20% while the proportion involving children remained constant, but child fatalities only increased by 10%, it seems that the children are dying at a lower rate than would be expected, which in turn suggests that the safety seats really are having an effect.

Answer Choice (C) If they are in cars the same amount of time then nothing has changed in terms of their chance of being involved in accidents.

Answer Choice (D) We are concerned with children aged 4 and under as a whole, the varying usage of seatbelts between subsets of children aged 4 and under has no impact on our argument

Answer Choice (E) If the adult fatalities increased at the same rate as the child fatalities while the safety seat usage increased, it suggests the doubling of safety seats had no impact on child fatalities.