Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S4 · Q10 Columnist: The dangers of mountain

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

Columnist: The dangers of mountain climbing have been greatly exaggerated by the popular media.

Conclusion

Mountain climbing isn't as dangerous as the popular media likes to claim.

Evidence

From 1922 - 2002, there were less than 200 climbing fatalities on Mount Everest, which is one of the most dangerous mountains in the world. In 2002, alone, there were 7,000 traffic fatalities in France.

Evaluate

Given this crazy asymmetry between deaths on Everest vs. those on the roadways of France, how could we still argue that mountain climbing is as dangerous as the popular media has said (which we'll assume is "quite dangerous"?)

One move we have is saying,

If you claimed that the Empire State Building in NYC was a really tall building, and someone said , that's not a good objection.

The popular media didn't say mountain climbing is the most dangerous thing ever, so pointing out that something else is potentially more dangerous is a Relative vs. Absolute type flaw.

But we should also think about how unfair the comparison is. If I tried to argue that , and you said, , it's not a fair comparison.

We don't measure danger in terms of the raw number of injuries / fatalities. We judge danger in terms of the likelihood of getting an injury / fatality.

If 13% of skydivers die each year, but only 1% of airplane riders die, then it seems like skydiving is more dangerous, regardless of the absolute number of deaths. There will be more deaths from airplane riders, since there are hundreds of millions of people who fly each year, whereas there might only be 1 million people who skydive each year.

Goal

We have two possible objections: -

10.

The reasoning in the columnist's argument is flawed because it fails to consider

whether the number of traffic
Too Weak
Yes, it weakens somewhat if the author cherry-picked one of the higher fatality years in France. However, it barely changes the logical force of her argument. What if the average fatalities is more like 5000 a year? It would be the same argument if she were saying "80 years = 200 Everest deaths", "1 year = 5000 French auto deaths".
1% picked this
whether the number of traffic
Out of Scope: other countries
This is just like (A), in the sense that it somewhat looks like a Sampling issue if the author picked one of the deadliest years in France, or if the author picked one of the deadliest countries for driving. But even if the average auto deaths for a country is 3,000, the logical force of the evidence is the same: "80 years, 200 deaths from climbing Everest" vs. "1 year, 3000 deaths from driving in country X"
1% picked this
whether the number of fatalities
Out of Scope: lowering fatalities
Discussing what could be done to reduce fatalities is totally beside the point. We're assessing whether mountain climbing is as dangerous as the media says it is. How safe it is in the future (if certain measures are implemented) is totally irrelevant.
0% picked this
Correct
how many climbers were on
Why this is right
This is one of those correct answers that isn't helping you out with understanding the objection, if you didn't already think it. Since there are about 100-200 people who climb Everest each year, you're talking about around 10,000 people who have tried to climb it in those 80 years. There are way more than 10,000 people who drive in France each year. If you're offended, on LSAT's behalf, that I'm pulling in outside knowledge there, yeah, this test sometimes rewards common sense about the world. However, even if these were made up names, it would be a fair correct answer to say "The absolute numbers of deaths are irrelevant to assessing danger. We need the relative rates." They've only given us the numerator of those fractions (Total Deaths / Total Participants). This answer choice is simply saying we need the denominators in order to calculate what % of people climbing Everest vs. driving in France have died.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
91% picked this
how many climbing fatalities there
No Impact
This is like (A) and (B). They're all trying to point out that there is some Sampling distortion. 2002 was a deadlier than average year! France is a deadlier than average country to drive in! Maybe Mount Everest isn't a representative mountain. Not only are these objections too small to matter, given how absurdly different the statistics were for Everest vs. France, but the author was actually generous to his opponents by picking one of the most dangerous mountains. If you were trying to hide the danger of mountain climbing, then you would use a safer mountain as a comparison. He used the most dangerous one to make the point that even the most dangerous mountain is still not lookin' so dangerous, compared to driving in France.
7% 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