PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 19
In Australia the population that is of driving(40 more words not shown)
Each of the statements below,(6 more words not shown)
- AThree years ago,(9 more words not shown)
- BFive years ago,(7 more words not shown)
- CBecause of increases(17 more words not shown)
- DThe number of(12 more words not shown)
- EIn response to(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Fewer deaths could mean safer roads, safer cars, or better emergency care. Why give all the credit to more skillful drivers?
We have more people of driving age and fewer annual traffic deaths. But being old enough to drive isn't the same as spending more time on the road. Perhaps people are driving less. Perhaps a seat-belt rule means more people survive crashes. Perhaps lower speed limits, improved car protection, or better hospitals reduce the chance that a crash is fatal. In each case, deaths could fall without drivers becoming better at driving.
What about better driver education? That could also help explain fewer deaths—but wait, it could help by making people more skillful. That would fit the author's explanation, not compete with it. We need to distinguish an alternative explanation from a way the proposed explanation might actually be true.
What we’re looking for
The question is weaken EXCEPT. Four answers will suggest reasons deaths could decline without an improvement in driving skill. The exception won't undercut that connection. It might even give us a reason to believe drivers really have improved.
Working the answers
- A
Seat belts can help people survive crashes without changing how skillfully they drive. This law supplies a possible reason for fewer fatalities even if drivers make just as many mistakes. That undercuts the move from fewer deaths to greater driving skill, so A is a weakener.
- B
Repairing roads could remove hazards that caused crashes. In that case, better road conditions would help explain the lower death toll even if the people behind the wheel hadn't improved. The answer offers a change in the driving environment rather than in the drivers' abilities.
- C
Less driving means less exposure to the risk of a traffic crash. Even with a larger population old enough to drive, people could spend less time on the road because fuel costs more. That gives us a reason the age-group count doesn't settle how much driving is happening. Fewer fatalities need not mean greater skill.
- D
More emergency facilities could make lifesaving treatment available to crash victims sooner. Drivers could still be crashing at the same rate, but more victims could survive. Since the evidence concerns deaths, not just crashes, this change in medical care provides a relevant alternative explanation.
- ECorrect
Driver education gives us a possible reason drivers became more skillful. If the training improves their driving, the resulting decline in deaths would work through exactly the change the author proposes.
It's tempting to eliminate E simply because it could explain fewer deaths, just like the other choices. But that isn't enough for a weakener. A through D offer ways deaths could fall without greater driving skill; E makes greater skill more plausible. It doesn't guarantee that the program worked, but it supplies no competing explanation that undermines the conclusion.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.