Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S3 · Q3 Statistics reveal that more collisions

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

Statistics reveal that more collisions between bicycles and motor vehicles occur on roads having specifically designated bicycle lanes than on roads having no such lanes.

Conclusion (Hence)

Adding specially marked bike lanes to existing roads is unlikely to enhance the safety of bicyclists.

Evidence

More collisions between bikes and vehicles occur on roads with specially marked bike lanes than without them.

Evaluate

This is an Anti-Causal conclusion, because the author is saying that specially marked bike lanes won't enhance the safety of people biking.

Since our job here is to object to the author's conclusion, we have to try to argue that

The author will retaliate by saying,

We would have to Make an Excuse for that evidence, as we often do on Anti-Causal arguments.

Given our view ... bike lanes do increase safety How can we explain why ... more collisions occur on roads with bike lanes?

It's probably because bike lanes are on really busy roads, and most collisions occur on really busy roads. It's also possible that bike lanes usually aren't added to a road unless it's a road where collisions between vehicles and bikes are more likely to occur.

Similarly, you would only install speed bumps on a street if that street had a preexisting problem with people speeding through it.

A parallel argument to this could say,

Goal

Look for an answer saying the argument fails to consider that bike lanes are taking a bad situation (an area where bikes keep getting hit by cars) and making them a better situation (bikes get hit less, once the bike lanes are installed, even though the number of collisions in these high traffic areas still outnumbers those in mellower roads where bike lanes aren't needed.

3.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. overlooks the possibility that injuries

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we object by saying, "Hey, author --- adding bike lanes does enhance bike safety. After all, the injuries bikers get on roads with bike lanes are on average of the same severity as those bikers get on roads without bike lanes"? No, if the injury severity is the same, then that doesn't help us argue that bike lanes enhance safety.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    fails to address the possibility

    Why this is right

    Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. This idea allows us to object by saying, "Hey, author --- adding bike lanes does enhance bike safety. The reason statistics would show that more collisions occur on roads with bike lanes isn't because bike lanes aren't improving safety conditions, it's because there are more bicyclists riding on roads with bicycle lanes than there are riding on roads without such lanes."

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

    88% picked this

  3. takes for granted that any

    Not Assumed / Too Strong: any

    Since this answer begins with takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a Necessary Assumption. The author commit himself to the view that "every single road alteration ever that enhances bikers' safety also enhances motorists' safety"? No. In addition to that being incredibly extreme, the argument never discusses improving motorists' safety at all.

    1% picked this

  4. concludes that adding bicycle lanes

    Bad Evidence Match

    Since this answer has the structure concludes that X on the grounds that Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and whether Y matches the evidence. Did the author conclude, "adding bike lanes won't enhance safety of bicyclists"? Yes. Good there. Was the author's premise saying that, "only some roads with bike lanes are safe"? Nope, it was a statistical figure that said "more collisions occur on roads w/ bike lanes than on those w/o."

    2% picked this

  5. takes statistical evidence that fails

    Trap

    Bad Evidence Match Not "Unproven vs. Proven False" Since this answer has the structure takes X as evidence that Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches the conclusion. Did the author's evidence cite "statistical evidence that fails to support a conclusion"? Huh? No. The author presented statistical evidence and considered it support for his conclusion. This answer alludes to one of the 10 famous flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False.

    6% 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