PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 21
Safety consultant: Judged by the number of injuries(64 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AWhen choosing what(21 more words not shown)
- BJudged by the(17 more words not shown)
- CMinivans tend to(12 more words not shown)
- DIn general, the(12 more words not shown)
- EMinivans generally have(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the drivers deserve the credit. A low injury count could reflect people who drive carefully, not a vehicle that protects occupants especially well in a collision. The crash-test results make the consultant's explanation sound plausible.
But those tests begin with a crash. What if the minivan is better at avoiding one?
Imagine brakes that help a driver stop before hitting another car, or handling that makes it easier to recover on an icy road. A vehicle could protect its occupants no better once a collision occurs and still be inherently safer because it prevents more collisions. The crash tests described wouldn't rule that out.
What we’re looking for
For a strengthener, I'd like to close that alternative route. If minivans don't have superior braking or emergency handling, their strong safety record is less easily explained by those features. That would add support for the consultant's explanation involving low-risk drivers.
Working the answers
- A
Safe drivers' interest in good crash-test results doesn't establish that they primarily choose minivans. Other vehicles of similar size perform at least as well in the tests described. These drivers could choose those alternatives. A doesn't give us the particular connection between minivans and low-risk drivers that the conclusion needs.
- B
Equal accident rates don't show that the drivers explain the lower injury rate. Accidents can differ in severity, so counting them isn't the same as explaining injuries. This answer neither gives us evidence that minivans primarily have low-risk drivers nor rules out a safety advantage in the way E does.
- C
Carrying more passengers makes the low number of injuries per vehicle even more striking, since more occupants could be injured in a crash. But it doesn't explain that record. We still need to distinguish the influence of the vehicle from the influence of its drivers.
- D
Larger vehicles protecting occupants better doesn't distinguish minivans from the similarly sized vehicles in the crash tests. It also points toward a feature of the vehicle, rather than specifically supporting the low-risk-driver explanation. The relevant comparison already holds size roughly constant.
- ECorrect
Minivans have worse braking and emergency handling than other vehicles of similar size. That undercuts the alternative we raised: perhaps superior crash-avoidance capabilities explain the record. Those particular features aren't superior after all.
E doesn't prove that driver behavior is the only cause, or that the vehicles must crash equally often in real life. It makes an important competing explanation less plausible, which strengthens the consultant's proposed explanation.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.