PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 12
Despite the fact that antilock brakes are designed(28 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(10 more words not shown)
- AMost cars equipped(16 more words not shown)
- BAntilock brakes malfunction(5 more words not shown)
- CAntilock brakes require(12 more words not shown)
- DMost people who(15 more words not shown)
- EAntilock brakes were(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could feeling safer make someone drive less carefully?
Imagine a football player who trusts a helmet so much that they take risks they would otherwise avoid. The protection can change the person's behavior. A driver who trusts new brakes might similarly drive more aggressively, offsetting the safety the equipment was intended to provide. That's a possible explanation, not something the passage has established about these drivers.
The distinction is between what the brakes are designed to do and what happens when people actually drive the cars. A safety feature could be useful in principle while the cars equipped with it end up in more accidents.
What we’re looking for
This is an EXCEPT question. Four answers will help explain that result, and one won't. My first guess is more careless driving, but the other useful answers could give entirely different reasons the intended benefit fails in practice. We need the answer that doesn't help explain the greater number of accidents.
Working the answers
- A
This fits the initial guess. If the cars with antilock brakes are driven more carelessly, that behavior could raise their accident rate despite the brakes' intended safety benefit. The answer doesn't say why the drivers are less careful, and we don't need to establish that mechanism to see how the behavior could explain the result. Eliminate A.
- B
Being designed for safety doesn't prevent equipment from malfunctioning. More frequent brake failures give us a reason the cars might have more accidents. This explains how the intended benefit could fail, so it isn't the exception.
- C
Expensive, specialized maintenance could be neglected. If the antilock brakes need that work just to match regular brakes that haven't been maintained, failing to get it could leave the drivers worse off. C identifies an obstacle to the brakes' working as intended, so it helps explain the discrepancy.
- D
Drivers who don't know how to use a braking system properly may fail to get its intended safety benefit. Improper use can help explain why equipment meant to improve safety goes along with more accidents. This is another reason to distinguish the design from its actual use.
- ECorrect
This switches from how many accidents occur to where the most serious accidents occur. A brake designed for urban driving might not solve the problem of serious highway crashes, but that doesn't explain why its users have more accidents than drivers without it.
The claim could leave us with an unanswered safety problem without giving us an increase in accidents. E also doesn't say the brakes make highway driving worse or that the two groups do different amounts of highway driving. We would have to supply that missing connection ourselves.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.