LSAT 129 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 129 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 2009

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

Target time: 0:58

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
PT129 S3 Q10	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Math +Math	A 5% 160 B 16% 159 C 78% 166 D 1% 157 E 0% 150	141 151 161	+Medium	146.07 +SubsectionMedium

Columnist: The failure of bicyclists to obey traffic regulations is a causal factor in more than one quarter of the traffic accidents involving bicycles. Since inadequate bicycle safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of such accidents, bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles.

Summarize Argument

The columnist concludes that bicyclists are partly responsible for more than half of all bike-related traffic accidents. She supports this by saying that bikers not following traffic rules contributes to more than a quarter of these accidents, and poor bike safety equipment is also a factor in more than a quarter of these accidents.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The columnist concludes that bicyclists are partly to blame for over half of bike-related accidents because two factors— not following traffic rules and using poor safety equipment— each contribute to more than a quarter of these accidents. Her reasoning is flawed because she assumes that these factors never overlap, or that only one factor contributes to each accident. But if some of these accidents involve both factors, she can't claim that bicyclists are responsible for over half of them.

presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the traffic accidents involving bicycles

The columnist doesn’t address motorists or assume that they’re a factor in less than half of the accidents. She says bicyclists are at least partially responsible for more than half of the accidents, so motorists could be partially responsible for these accidents as well.

improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis of a correlation

The columnist doesn’t draw a causal conclusion based on a mere correlation. Instead, she infers a detail about a causal relationship on the basis of a premise that does establish something as “a causal factor.”

fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to a given accident

The columnist assumes that only one of the factors contributes to each accident. But if not following traffic rules and using poor safety equipment both contribute to some accidents, then it might not be true that bicyclists are partly responsible for over half of the accidents.

fails to provide the source of the figures it cites

The columnist doesn’t provide sources for her cited figures, but this isn’t a flaw in her reasoning.

fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents can vary widely

The columnist’s argument is about the factors that contribute to bike-related traffic accidents. The severity of the bicyclists’ injuries from each accident is irrelevant.

LSAT 129 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 129 - Section 3 - 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 129 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel