Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT125 S2 Q14 Explanation

The number of serious

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

The number of serious traffic accidents (accidents resulting in hospitalization or death) that occurred on Park Road from 1986 to 1990 was 35 percent lower than the number of serious accidents from 1981 to 1985. The speed limit on Park Road was lowered limit led to the decrease in serious accidents.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
14.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope6% picked this

    The number of speeding tickets issued annually on Park Road remained roughly constant from

    The number of speeding tickets is a product of both the number of people who speed on Park Road and the level of enforcement on that road. It could be that the number of tickets remained constant even if the number of people who speed on Park Road decreased because the level of enforcement increased.

  2. Strengthen4% picked this

    Beginning in 1986, police patrolled Park Road much less frequently than in 1985

    This makes it more likely that the decrease in serious accidents was not from increased enforcement of the speed limit on Park Road.

  3. Correct69% picked this

    The annual number of vehicles using Park Road decreased significantly and steadily from

    Why this is right

    This weakens the argument by providing an alternative explanation for the reduced number of serious accidents after 1986.

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

  4. Strengthen2% picked this

    The annual number of accidents on Park Road that did not result in hospitalization remained roughly constant

    This makes it more likely that the reduction in serious accidents was not from a reduction in the number of drivers on the road. By undermining an alternative explanation, this makes the argument’s conclusion more likely to be true.

  5. Strengthens, if anything19% picked this

    Until 1986 accidents were classified as "serious" only if they resulted in an

    This says that in 1986, the definition of "serious" accident was expanded to include any accident that had a hospital stay (not just those that had lengthy hospital stays). This would provide an explanation for why there would be more serious accidents from 1986 onward. Since we know that there were fewer serious accidents from 1986 onward, that means that something (maybe the new speed limit) is really making a big difference. So if anything, this could strengthen. If this said, "Beginning in 1986, accidents were only designated 'serious' when they resulted in a lengthy hospital stay", then it could be a correct answer. That would offer an alternate explanation for why the number of serious accidents dropped.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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