LSAT 103 – Section 3 – Question 19

LSAT 103 - Section 3 - Question 19

September 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:21

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT103 S3 Q19
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Math +Math
A
2%
158
B
2%
160
C
10%
160
D
82%
168
E
4%
158
147
154
161
 +Harder 148.537 +SubsectionMedium

Over the past 20 years, skiing has become a relatively safe sport due to improvements in ski equipment. There has been a 50 percent drop in the number of ski injuries over the last 20 years. Clearly, however, there have not been decreases in the number of injuries in all categories, as statistical data readily show, for although broken legs and ankle injuries have decreased by an astounding 90 percent, knee injuries now represent 16 percent of all ski injuries, up significantly from the 11 percent of 20 years ago.

Summarize Argument
The argument concludes that not every type of ski injury has seen decreasing numbers, although the number of ski injuries has decreased overall. This is supported with the statistic that knee injuries, which used to represent 11 percent of ski injuries, now represent 16 percent.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter flaw of confusing amounts and percentages. The argument’s conclusion is about the amount of different types of ski injuries, but the evidence is only about percentages. However, it’s entirely possible that there are fewer knee injuries now, even though they account for a greater percentage of all ski injuries—for example, because the number of other injury types has just decreased more.

A
It fails to allow for there being ski injuries other than broken legs, ankle injuries, and knee injuries.
The argument only uses these three types of injuries as examples, it never claims that they’re the only types of ski injuries.
B
It infers disparate effects from the same single cause.
The argument is only concerned with one cause and one effect: the cause is improvements in ski equipment, and the effect is a lower number of ski injuries.
C
It ignores the possibility that the number of skiers has increased over the past 20 years.
The argument states that ski injuries have decreased by 50 percent over the past 20 years, regardless of the number of skiers. Also, the percentage statistics the argument cites are unaffected by the number of skiers.
D
It assumes that an increase in the proportion of knee injuries rules out a decrease in the number of knee injuries.
The argument concludes that certain types of injuries have not decreased in number, and uses knee injuries as an example based on an increased percentage. This ignores the possibility that there are still fewer knee injuries, even though the percentage is higher.
E
It proceeds as though there could be a greater decrease in injuries in each category of injury than there is in injuries overall.
The argument never acts as though every category of injury could see a greater decrease than the overall decrease.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 103 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply