PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 26
Smoking in bed has long been the main(32 more words not shown)
Each one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- ACompared to other(20 more words not shown)
- BHome fires caused(14 more words not shown)
- CSmokers who smoke(23 more words not shown)
- DAn increasing number(13 more words not shown)
- EPopulation densities have(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why haven't fire deaths fallen along with cigarette smoking?
Smoking in bed has been the main cause of home fires, so fewer cigarettes might lead us to expect fewer deadly fires. Yet the number of deaths hasn't fallen by a comparable amount. We need to understand how those facts could fit together.
Maybe other sources of fire have become more common. A decrease in smoking wouldn't help the overall death count much if more people were dying in fires started some other way. Or imagine that fire protection became much less effective: even fewer fires might cause just as many deaths if help no longer arrived in time. These are possible explanations to look for, not facts we can assume.
What we’re looking for
This is an EXCEPT question. Four answers should help explain why deaths haven't fallen as much as smoking. We want the one that doesn't help. Keep both sides of that question in mind.
Working the answers
- A
If fires from smoking in bed usually cause little damage before being put out, reducing them might do less to lower deaths than we initially expected. They could account for many fire incidents without accounting for a similarly large share of the deadly ones.
This doesn't say these fires never kill anyone, and property damage isn't identical to loss of life. Still, it gives us a reason the reduction in this common kind of fire might produce only a limited reduction in deaths. That helps with the discrepancy, so eliminate A.
- BCorrect
This tells us why fires from smoking in bed might be especially dangerous: sleeping people may not notice them promptly. But how does that explain deaths failing to fall as smoking declines? It supplies no change or missing connection that answers that question. If anything, making these fires sound more deadly reinforces our expectation that reducing them would reduce deaths. B leaves the original puzzle in place.
- C
The people quitting may not be the people starting these fires. Smoking overall can decline while the heavy smokers who smoke in bed largely keep doing it. Then the broad smoking trend wouldn't translate into a comparable reduction in the particular behavior causing home fires. C helps explain the mismatch.
- D
This matches the prediction of another source offsetting the decline. More people are dying in kitchen fires. Those additional deaths can keep the total from falling much even if fewer people die in fires caused by smoking in bed.
- E
More deaths per fire could offset a reduction in fires. For example, fewer incidents wouldn't guarantee fewer victims if each incident now exposed more people to danger. E explicitly gives us that increased potential for deaths. It doesn't need to show that smoking stayed common; it explains why a decline in one cause might not produce a comparable decline in the death count.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.