Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S3 · Q22 Columnist: Several recent studies show

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

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.

Evidence

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.

Conclusion

Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.

Evaluate

The argument's conclusion compares the riskiness of crossing with the light at a crosswalk to the riskiness of crossing against the light at a crosswalk. However the evidence compares the number of people killed crossing with the light at a crosswalk to the number of people killed crossing against the light at a crosswalk. But "riskiness" should be measured as a likelihood of being killed while crossing the street in both cases.

22.

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

  1. relies on sources that are

    Wrong Flaw

    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.

    1% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Wrong Flaw

    The argument does not assert a causal relationship.

    20% picked this

  3. does not adequately consider the

    Wrong Flaw

    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.

    8% picked this

  4. ignores the possibility that the

    Out of Scope - Opposite Group

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

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    ignores possible differences in the

    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.

    67% 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