LSAT 113 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 113 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 2002

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:07

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
PT113 S2 Q25
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
7%
153
B
19%
155
C
5%
152
D
66%
162
E
4%
154
146
154
162
 +Harder 147.106 +SubsectionMedium

In a car accident, air bags greatly reduce the risk of serious injury. However, statistics show that cars without air bags are less likely to be involved in accidents than are cars with air bags. Thus, cars with air bags are no safer than cars without air bags.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that cars with air bags are no safer than those without, since cars without air bags are less likely to be in accidents.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that cars with air bags are no safer than cars without air bags, simply because they’re more likely to be involved in accidents. However, she overlooks two important points:

(1) How much more likely are cars with air bags to be in accidents?

(2) How serious are the accidents for each type of car? If cars without air bags have fewer accidents but those accidents are more dangerous or fatal, the author can’t assume that cars without air bags are just as safe. Essentially, she treats the likelihood of getting into an accident as equally important as the severity of the accident.

A
assumes, without providing justification, that any car with air bags will probably become involved in an accident
The author doesn’t make this assumption. She claims that cars with air bags are more likely to be involved in accidents, but she never claims that all of them will be involved in accidents.
B
denies the possibility that cars without air bags have other safety features that reduce the risk of serious injury at least as much as do air bags
The author neither addresses nor denies this possibility. Also, she claims that cars without air bags are no less safe than cars with them. So, if anything, she might accept the possibility that they have some other effective safety features.
C
overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both cars with air bags and cars without air bags
The author admits that both kinds of cars can be involved in accidents; she just says that cars without air bags are less likely to be in them. She never overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both kinds of cars.
D
assumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of an accident’s occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting injury in estimates of relative safety
The author assumes that, when estimating the relative safety of a car, the likelihood of getting into an accident is at least as important as the seriousness of any injuries from an accident. But what if cars without air bags have fewer but more fatal accidents?
E
takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to be deployed
The author simply doesn’t make this assumption. She claims that cars with air bags are more likely to be in accidents, but she never assumes that all of those accidents would cause the air bags to be deployed.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply