Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT130 S3 Q22 ExplanationColumnist: Several recent studies show

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

TopicsFlaw

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

Start practicing free

Free to start

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

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 less dangerous than crossing with the light.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

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

The question
22.

The columnist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds

Answer choices, explained

  1. Wrong Flaw1% picked this

    relies on sources that are likely to be biased in

    Unreliable sources can be an issue, but there would need to be reason to believe that those sources are biased or unreliable and while these sources might be biased, there is no reason to suspect that they are biased. Furthermore, when statistical evidence is “confirmed” within an argument, it’s tough to imagine how it could then be questioned as biased or unreliable.

  2. Wrong Flaw20% picked this

    presumes, without providing justification, that because two things are correlated there must be a causal

    The argument does not assert a causal relationship.

  3. Wrong Flaw8% picked this

    does not adequately consider the possibility that a correlation between two events may be explained

    The argument does not assert causal explanations that are different for being killed while crossing with the light and for being killed while crossing against the light.

  4. Out of Scope - Opposite Group5% picked this

    ignores the possibility that the effects of the types of actions considered might be quite different in environments

    Other environments are not relevant to the argument since the conclusion only compares crossing with the light and crossing against it.

  5. Correct65% picked this

    ignores possible differences in the frequency of the two actions whose risk

    Why this is right

    This correctly points out the possibility that more people are killed while crossing with the light than against it because more people cross with the light overall. This could explain how the riskiness of crossing with the light is less than the riskiness of crossing against the light, even though more people are killed while crossing with the light than while crossing against the light.

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

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