LR Drill Set 12, Question 7
To make crossing the street safer for pedestrians,(47 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(15 more words not shown)
- Athe city paints(9 more words not shown)
- Bintersections where crosswalks(14 more words not shown)
- Cpedestrians are also(10 more words not shown)
- Deven if crosswalks(14 more words not shown)
- Ein some of(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the dangerous intersections are why the city painted the crosswalks there.
The study compares intersections with painted crosswalks to other intersections. It doesn't compare the same intersections before and after the paint. If the city chose especially dangerous locations, those locations could remain more dangerous than the others even after the crosswalks helped.
Imagine one intersection starts with a risk level of 10 and another starts at 2. Painting a crosswalk lowers the first to 6. It's still the more dangerous crossing, but the paint has made it safer than it was.
Those numbers are just an illustration: a worse final result doesn't prove there was no improvement from a worse starting point.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what the argument overlooks. I'd look for the possibility that the city selected the most dangerous intersections for crosswalks. That would explain the comparison without forcing us to conclude that the crosswalks failed.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If crosswalks are painted only at the most dangerous intersections, the two groups didn't start out equally safe. The painted intersections could improve substantially and still be more dangerous than the others. The author needs a way to assess the crosswalks' effect, not just a comparison of the locations' remaining danger.
- B
Equal crossing frequency doesn't establish equal danger before the paint was applied. Two intersections could have the same number of pedestrians but very different traffic conditions. Also, the evidence concerns how much danger pedestrians face, not simply a larger total number of accidents where more people cross. B doesn't expose the missing comparison we identified.
- C
Other intersections can be dangerous too. The argument says painted intersections are typically more dangerous, not that they are the only dangerous ones. Recognizing some danger elsewhere doesn't explain whether painting a crosswalk reduced danger at a selected intersection.
- D
People crossing without a painted crosswalk tells us where pedestrians go. It doesn't tell us how the paint affects their safety. We already have a comparison involving other intersections; the missing information concerns the effect of adding crosswalks, not whether anyone uses intersections without them.
- E
Some painted intersections can be relatively safe even though painted intersections are typically more dangerous. A statement about the typical case allows exceptions. E also doesn't tell us whether those locations became safer because of the paint. A identifies a reason the entire comparison could mislead us, rather than merely pointing to a few different cases.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.