PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 7
More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by(26 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(8 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(22 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(17 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes that there(20 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(13 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the lights are there because the crossing was dangerous in the first place.
A busy intersection could have more pedestrian injuries than a quiet crossing even after useful safety measures are installed. Comparing those locations doesn't tell us what the busy intersection would be like without the lights and striping. Perhaps the features reduced injuries considerably, but the intersection still has more injuries than the quiet location.
For example, imagine the busy crossing would have twenty injuries without the features and has ten with them. A quiet crossing has one. Ten is more than one, but reducing twenty to ten would hardly show that the features accomplish nothing. Those numbers are an illustration of the possibility the argument overlooks.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the missing comparison: this crossing with the features versus this crossing without them. We cannot conclude that the features waste money merely because the places that have them record more injuries than the places that don't.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The features may have been installed precisely where the original danger was greatest. In that case, the higher injury count isn't evidence that the features failed. Those crossings might have been even worse without them. The danger could explain the decision to install the features, rather than the features explaining the danger.
- B
This focuses on what to say about features that fail to reduce injuries. But the argument hasn't established that these features failed to reduce injuries. They might prevent many injuries and still be found at crossings with comparatively high totals. That unsupported judgment of failure is the more direct problem.
- C
Calling these features a waste doesn't require believing that a cheaper replacement would work just as well. The author could think the city should spend nothing at all. There is no comparison of alternative technologies or prices in the argument.
- D
Other safety features could be present. The argument doesn't need to assume they are absent to make its mistaken comparison. The central question remains whether the lights and striping reduce injuries relative to what would happen at those same crossings without them.
- E
We aren't comparing the seriousness of pedestrians' injuries with drivers' injuries. Even if pedestrians fare much worse, that doesn't tell us whether lights and striping protect them. A fact about who gets hurt more severely doesn't resolve whether the safety features help.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.