LR Drill Set 14, Question 2
In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AIn jurisdictions where(21 more words not shown)
- BA law making(13 more words not shown)
- COnly very careful(10 more words not shown)
- DThere are some(13 more words not shown)
- EThe jurisdictions where(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Forcing someone to switch on the headlights doesn't force that person to pay attention.
Where headlights are optional in good visibility, the people who choose to use them all the time have fewer collisions. One explanation is that headlights help. Another is that unusually careful drivers choose that extra precaution and also do other things that keep them safer.
Now the rule changes: everyone has to use headlights, and the overall collision count doesn't fall. That would make sense under the second explanation. A driver who was distracted before can remain distracted afterward, now with the headlights on. The rule changes the lights, not necessarily the habits that made the voluntary users safer.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to resolve that discrepancy. I'd look for evidence that choosing the headlights voluntarily identifies careful drivers. Then the original difference between the groups needn't predict an improvement when everyone is made to use the lights.
Working the answers
- A
One driver in four choosing headlights tells us the size of the group, not why its members have fewer collisions. The original pattern and the disappointing result of the law could remain puzzling whether the group was larger or smaller. We need an explanation of the difference, not just another percentage.
- B
Easy enforcement doesn't explain why the expected safety improvement failed to happen. It could make us more confident that the law changes headlight use, but we still need to know why that change doesn't reduce collisions. Noncompliance would be one possible explanation; B doesn't supply it.
- CCorrect
Voluntary headlight use is limited to very careful drivers. That gives us a reason for the original group's lower collision risk apart from the headlights themselves: the people selecting the precaution are careful in general.
Once use becomes mandatory, careful and careless drivers alike have their headlights on. The characteristic that distinguished the voluntary users hasn't been created in everyone else. The law can therefore fail to reduce collisions even though voluntary users were previously safer.
- D
Jurisdictions that prohibit headlights in good visibility are a third situation. The discrepancy concerns optional use and the effect of requiring use. Knowing other places have a different rule doesn't explain the result of changing the rule in the situation described.
- E
Poor visibility might make those places dangerous, which can make this tempting. But the question isn't why some places have more collisions than others. It's why making headlights mandatory doesn't reduce the collisions.
The original comparison already distinguishes drivers who use lights all the time from drivers who use them when visibility is poor. Describing the places as frequently having poor visibility doesn't explain the voluntary users' advantage or show why the additional required use in good visibility has no effect. C supplies the missing difference in the drivers themselves.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.