Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S2 · Q17 A safety report indicates that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed.

Given that ....

traffic fatalities tend to decline by about 7% in areas where they pass strict laws requiring everyone in a car to wear seat belts.

How can it be that ...

In city X, where two years ago they passed seat belt laws, the number of traffic deaths has remained the same?

Evaluate / Goal

Since this is Paradox-EXCEPT, we know there will be four answers that find some way to reconcile these two.

Maybe we'll find out this city's law isn't really stringent. Maybe people aren't complying with it. Maybe there are way more people in the city than there were two years ago (so the percent of fatalities may have gone down even though the absolute number is around the same).

Let's eliminate the four that help explain why the seat belt law doesn't seem like it's having the expected effect, or answers that allow us to see how even if the seat belt law is decreasing fatalities, there's still some counteractive force that is making the raw number of traffic deaths about the same as before.

17.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city's public safety records?

  1. Two years ago speed limits

    Explains

    This is a counteracting force. Even though the seat belt law is a force that lowers fatalities, at the same there is a new force (increased speed limit) that can increase fatalities. That's why it's balancing out to be the same number of traffic deaths.

    13% picked this

  2. The city now includes pedestrian

    Explains

    This is a counteracting force. Even though the seat belt law is a force that lowers fatalities, at the same there is a new force (an expanded definition of traffic fatalities) that increases the number of fatalities, according to the city's public safety records. That's why it's balancing out to be the same number of traffic deaths.

    7% picked this

  3. In the time since the

    Explains

    This is a counteracting force. Even though the seat belt law is a force that's lowering fatalities, at the same there is a new force (more car traffic) that can increase fatalities. That's why it's balancing out to be the same number of traffic deaths.

    10% picked this

  4. Because the city’s seat belt

    Explains

    On most EXCEPT questions, 3 of the four answers we're eliminating work one way, and the other 1 works a different way. (A), (B), and (C) resolved the Paradox by showing us some new factor that would increase the number of fatalities, at the same time that the seat belt laws are decreasing fatalities, and that's why it comes out to be around the same number of deaths. Meanwhile (D) resolves the Paradox by suggesting that the new seat belt law isn't actually decreasing fatalities (because people are ignoring it), which explains why we come out to the same number of deaths.

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    In the last two years,

    Why this is right

    On the surface, this answer seems similar to (D), but this answer choice is saying something our common sense already knew. This answer is saying, "Most citizens who died in an accident weren't wearing a seat belt during the accident." Choice (D) is saying, "Most citizens in this city don't wear their seat belts when in a car, even when the law requires it". This latter one helps explain why the seatbelt law hasn't done anything to reduce fatalities. How does a seat belt law reduce fatalities? Well, our common sense would tell us, it's supposed to force more people to wear seat belts than would otherwise be wearing seat belts. (D), however, says that the law doesn't actually force more people to wear their belts while driving. How does wearing a seat belt reduce fatalities? Again, common sense knows that when you're not wearing a seat belt, an accident can throw you straight into your windshield, whereas when you're wearing a seat belt, you are way less likely to die, because it keeps you in your seat. In other words, we already know that when people are wearing seat belts they're way less likely to die in an accident. That's why we mandate seat belts. Hence, we already know what this answer is saying --- the people who die in car accidents weren't wearing their seat belts. That was true before and it's still true now. Before the seat belt law was enacted, the people (voluntarily) wearing belts weren't likely to die in accidents. The people not wearing their belts were likely to die. Thus, most of the deaths were from people who weren't wearing belts. Even if the seat belt law causes tons more people to start wearing seat belts, it will still be true that the people wearing belts are unlikely to die and the people not wearing belts are likely to die.

    Skill tested: Paradox · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    64% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free