Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S3 · Q7 More pedestrian injuries occur

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

More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked.

Conclusion (obviously)

These so-called safety features (striping and flashing lights at crosswalks) are a waste of taxpayer money.

Evidence

This is an Anti-Causal conclusion, because the author is saying that these safety features are a waste of money (implying ).

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 that ... the stripes and flashing lights do increase safety at crosswalks, How can we explain why ... more pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked in such a way?

Maybe those crosswalks were already terrible before the stripes and flashing lights arrived. Perhaps the flashing lights and stripes are an attempt to deal with a terrible intersection. They make the situation better, but those crosswalks are still the worst.

It would be like if China or the U.S. took some steps to curb greenhouse emissions. Their measures might reduce greenhouse emissions but China and the U.S. would still be the worst polluters in the world, because they're so much worse than everyone else.

LSAT has used this type of argument a bunch (click on the bold if you'd like to see other examples): .

Our objections: - We sent the cops there because the area was so bad in terms of crime. - We added the bike lanes because there were so many bikes getting hit by cars.

Goal

Look for an answer saying we added these stripes and flashing lights because these crosswalks were already a travesty. These safety features are taking an awful situation and making it somewhat less awful, even if these intersections are still the worst overall.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because the argument

Correct
fails to consider that crosswalks
Why this is right
When an answer starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, we added these safety features precisely because these roads are the most dangerous ones"? Yes! That's exposing the author's bad logic. The safety features are a response to these crosswalks being the worst. They aren't causing the crosswalks to be the worst. To measure their effectiveness as safety features, we would need to compare how many injuries occurred at these crosswalks before the safety features were installed vs. after.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
87% picked this
takes for granted that safety
Trap
Bad Evidence Match Not a Good Objection When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "if a safety feature fails to reduce the number of injuries, then it is a waste of taxpayer money"? We judge conditional assumptions by thinking, "Does the trigger match the evidence? Does the outcome match the conclusion or something the author assumed en route to the conclusion?" Was there a premise that said, "these safety features failed to reduce the number of injuries at these crosswalks"? No. There is no before / after comparison. For all we know, these safety features did reduce the number of injuries. The author was assuming that, "if a safety feature is associated with the worst examples of a problem, then it's a waste of taxpayer money", because the premise is saying there's a correlation between these safety features being present and the problem of pedestrian injuries being at its worst. Finally, even though the author never stated a premise about these safety measures failing to reduce number of injuries, it does still feel fair to say that this author would agree that "if the safety features aren't reducing injuries (which was their objective), then it's a waste of money". But wouldn't we also agree with that? Are we going to object to this author by saying, "Even though the safety measures don't reduce injuries, they're not a waste of money. After all, the flashing lights are aesthetically pleasing, so the money has been spent beautifying the intersection." That seems like a very unlikely objection.
6% picked this
presumes that there are less
Out of Scope: less expensive
When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "there are cheaper options that would reduce injuries as much as striping and flashing lights"? No, the argument never discusses or insinuates the existence of any other safety options. If we negated this answer and said, "there are no cheaper options that could achieve the same injury reduction", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. The author would still say, "Even if striping and flashing lights are our best option, they still are not a good option. After all, more injuries occur at intersections that have these features than at those that don't."
4% picked this
takes for granted that crosswalks
Too Strong: no other features
When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "none of these crosswalks with striping and flashing lights have any other safety features"? No. Just because the author is citing a statistic comparing crosswalks that have both striping and flashing lights to those that don't doesn't mean she's assuming that any intersection with striping and flashing lights only has those safety features. If some intersections with striping and flashing lights also had a talking "Don't Walk" sign, that wouldn't hurt the argument at all.
3% picked this
fails to consider that, in
Not an Objection
When an answer starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- when a pedestrians gets hit by a car, it usually hurts the pedestrian more than the passengers in the car"? Definitely not. That's a pretty obvious statement about the world, and it doesn't intrude on the author's logic at all.
1% 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