LSAT 130 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 130 - Section 3 - Question 22

September 2009

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:53

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
PT130 S3 Q22
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Math +Math
A
1%
155
B
13%
156
C
5%
158
D
3%
155
E
77%
165
144
152
160
 +Medium 145.135 +SubsectionEasier

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Columnist: Several recent studies show, and insurance statistics confirm, that more pedestrians are killed every year in North American cities when crossing with the light than when crossing against it. Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.

Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that crossing with the light is more dangerous than crossing against it. As support, she cites recent studies and insurance statistics which show that more pedestrians are killed every year when crossing with the light than when crossing against it.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing amounts with percentages. The columnist assumes that a greater amount of people dying implies a greater risk. She ignores the possibility that a much larger number of people overall may cross with the light.

For example, maybe 100 people cross with the light and 10 of them die, while 10 people cross against it and 8 of them die. In this case, 10% of people crossing with the light die, while 80% crossing against it die, meaning that crossing against the light is much more dangerous, even though a smaller number of people die.

A
relies on sources that are likely to be biased in their reporting
We have no reason to believe that the recent studies or insurance statistics are likely to be biased in their reporting.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that because two things are correlated there must be a causal relationship between them
Like (C), the columnist never actually establishes a correlation between crossing with the light and dying. Also, her conclusion doesn’t assume that crossing with the light causes death, just that crossing with the light is more dangerous than crossing against it.
C
does not adequately consider the possibility that a correlation between two events may be explained by a common cause
Like (B), the columnist never actually establishes a correlation between crossing with the light and dying, nor does she draw a causal conclusion.
D
ignores the possibility that the effects of the types of actions considered might be quite different in environments other than the ones studied
The columnist’s conclusion is about crossing with the light in North American cities, which is the same environment where the studies took place. The number of deaths from crossing with or against the light in other environments is irrelevant.
E
ignores possible differences in the frequency of the two actions whose risk is being assessed
The columnist overlooks the fact that more people may cross with the light than against it. She concludes that crossing with the light is riskier just because more people die, but crossing against the light could actually be more dangerous, even with fewer deaths.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply