PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 14
The number of serious traffic accidents (accidents resulting(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AThe number of(14 more words not shown)
- BBeginning in 1986,(13 more words not shown)
- CThe annual number(13 more words not shown)
- DThe annual number(18 more words not shown)
- EUntil 1986 accidents(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Accidents fell. Why give the speed limit all the credit?
Something else could have changed on Park Road. Perhaps driving conditions improved, police became more visible, or drivers became safer. The lower posted limit could have helped, but its timing alone doesn't establish that it caused the decline. It might not even have changed how fast people drove if they were already staying below the new limit.
What if fewer people used the road? Imagine that a restaurant was the main reason to drive there and then closed. Fewer trips would mean fewer opportunities for crashes, even if each remaining driver behaved exactly as before. We wouldn't need safer driving to explain fewer serious accidents.
What we’re looking for
For the weaken question, I'd look for evidence supporting another reason for the decrease. We should accept the lower accident count and challenge the explanation for it. More police patrols or a real decline in traffic could do that; the answers need to show the relevant change, not merely mention the topic.
Working the answers
- A
A roughly constant ticket count doesn't establish increased enforcement as an alternative explanation for fewer accidents. It also doesn't tell us exactly how fast people were driving. The same number of tickets could occur under different traffic and enforcement conditions, so we shouldn't turn this count into a story about what caused the decline.
- B
This gives us less police patrolling, not more. It doesn't support the idea that greater police presence prevented serious accidents. An answer can mention the right subject and move it in the wrong direction for our explanation.
- CCorrect
Significantly fewer vehicles used the road over time. That gives us fewer opportunities for serious accidents and a reason their total number could fall without the speed-limit reduction causing the change. The traffic decline was already occurring before 1986 and continued afterward. C doesn't prove the lower limit had no effect; it supplies a competing explanation that weakens the author's confident attribution.
- D
The number of accidents without hospitalization doesn't explain the drop in the serious accidents the argument concerns. One category could remain roughly constant while another decreased. We need a reason for the decrease we're actually trying to explain.
- E
Read the direction of the definition change. Before 1986, an extended hospital stay was required for an accident to count as serious. Afterward, the description includes hospitalization more broadly. That makes it easier for an accident to enter the serious category, which by itself would tend to raise the count, not lower it. A decrease despite that broader category isn't explained away by the reclassification.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.