LSAT 122 – Section 4 – Question 11

LSAT 122 - Section 4 - Question 11

June 2006

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:55

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
PT122 S4 Q11
+LR
Resolve reconcile or explain +RRE
A
97%
164
B
0%
148
C
0%
156
D
0%
146
E
2%
152
128
135
142
 +Easier 146.485 +SubsectionMedium

Consumer activist: When antilock brakes were first introduced, it was claimed that they would significantly reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions, thereby saving lives. Indeed, antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions. I maintain, however, that to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with them.

"Surprising" Phenomenon

If antilock brakes have reduced the incidence of multiple-car collisions, why does the consumer activist maintain that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes?

Objective

The correct answer must identify how manufacturing cars without antilock brakes could directly or indirectly save more lives than manufacturing cars with antilock brakes even though antilock brakes have reduced the occurrence of multiple-car collisions.

A
Drivers and passengers in automobiles with antilock brakes feel less vulnerable, and are thus less likely to wear seat belts.

If fewer people wear seat belts while driving with antilock brakes than without, the lack of seatbelt usage could cause more lost lives than the number of lives saved from the reduction in multiple-car collisions because of antilock brakes.

B
Under some circumstances, automobiles with traditional brakes stop just as quickly as do automobiles with antilock brakes.

The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a decrease in multiple-car collisions, so this is irrelevant.

C
For inexperienced drivers, antilock brakes are easier to use correctly than are traditional brakes.

The level of difficulty of correctly using antilock brakes doesn’t matter. We want to know why the consumer activist advises that, to save lives, automobile manufacturers ought to stop equipping cars with antilock brakes.

D
Antilock brakes are considerably more expensive to manufacture than are traditional brakes.

The cost of manufacturing antilock brakes is irrelevant. We need an answer that helps explain how producing cars without antilock brakes could save more lives than producing cars with antilock brakes.

E
Antilock brakes are no more effective in preventing multiple-car accidents than in preventing other kinds of traffic accidents.

The stimulus tells us that antilock brakes have led to a reduction in multiple-car accidents, so (E) doesn’t matter.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply