PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 10
Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher(55 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Aaccepts without question(13 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(13 more words not shown)
- Cignores the possibility(11 more words not shown)
- Ddoes not specify(10 more words not shown)
- Emakes an unsupported(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the dangerous drivers just buy blue cars?
A higher accident rate for red cars could have something to do with the drivers who choose them. Perhaps reckless drivers prefer red. Or perhaps certain kinds of cars are more often painted red. Those are possibilities, but either would make us question whether the color itself explains the crashes.
The insurance companies' statistic can be true without establishing that banning the color will save lives. A reckless driver could replace a red car with an otherwise similar blue one and drive just as recklessly. The observed connection would have pointed us toward the wrong thing to change.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for that overlooked possibility: the drivers, rather than the red paint, could account for the elevated accident rate. We don't have to prove that's the real explanation. We need to show why the statistic doesn't guarantee the benefit of the proposed ban.
Working the answers
- A
Whether insurers have a right to charge more is separate from whether banning red cars would save lives. The argument could be mistaken about the proposed ban even if those premiums were entirely justified. We need to examine the safety prediction, not decide the ethics of insurance pricing.
- B
Repair costs might help explain an insurance premium. But the conclusion concerns saving lives by banning red cars, based on their greater accident involvement. Knowing whether repairs cost the same doesn't establish that color causes the accidents or that a color ban will reduce them.
- CCorrect
A preference among reckless drivers could produce the statistic without red paint making driving more dangerous. Those drivers would still be around after a ban; they could drive other-colored cars just as badly.
This identifies the missing causal connection. More accidents among red cars doesn't tell us that changing or banning the color removes what causes the accidents. The conclusion promises saved lives without ruling out a pattern driven by the people choosing those cars.
- D
The missing exact percentage isn't the relevant problem. We're already told the percentage is greater for red cars. Whether it is 12 percent versus 8 percent or some other pair, the question remains why that difference exists and what a ban would change. More precise numbers would not resolve that gap.
- E
Saving lives wouldn't require every accident to be fatal. If a measure prevented some fatal accidents, it could save lives even though many other accidents caused no deaths. The argument need not assume the universal claim E attributes to it. Its problem is the unsupported promise that this particular measure would prevent the relevant harm.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.