PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 19
Studies have shown that pedestrians are struck by(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe overwhelming majority(9 more words not shown)
- BThe number of(9 more words not shown)
- CPedestrians tend to(11 more words not shown)
- DDrivers are generally(10 more words not shown)
- EMeasures intended to(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe more people get hit in crosswalks because more people cross there.
A larger number of accidents doesn't automatically mean a greater danger per crossing. Imagine comparing murder totals in a very large city and a sparsely populated region. The city might have more victims simply because it has more people. We'd need the population figures before using those totals to judge each person's risk. Here, we need to know how much crossing happens in each place.
The author offers a different explanation: crosswalks make pedestrians feel too secure, so they become less careful. That could happen. A crossing signal can't prevent every driver from making a mistake, and someone who trusts it too much might stop checking for cars. But the explanation hasn't ruled out the simpler possibility that the greater number of accidents reflects a greater number of crossings.
What we’re looking for
To weaken it, I'd look for evidence that crosswalks handle many more pedestrians. That would help explain the accident count without attributing it to a false sense of security.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The overwhelming majority of pedestrians in high-traffic areas use crosswalks. That means far more people are exposed to cars while crossing in those places. Even if each individual crossing were no riskier, the much larger number of crossings could produce more accidents. A gives us an alternative to the author's explanation about careless pedestrians.
- B
An increase in the total number of people struck over time doesn't explain the difference between crossing inside and outside crosswalks. The question concerns why the accidents are distributed between those locations as described, not why the overall total changed.
- C
Underestimating the chance of a signal malfunction could contribute to an excessive sense of security. That is compatible with, and may help, the author's explanation. It doesn't undermine the idea that misplaced confidence affects pedestrians' caution.
- D
Alert drivers could coexist with inattentive pedestrians. The author's proposed problem is that pedestrians feel too secure and fail to look, and D doesn't rule that out. It also doesn't establish that drivers' greater alertness eliminates the risk or explains why more people are struck in crosswalks.
- E
This supports the proposed mechanism. A crosswalk is a safety measure, and the author claims that feeling protected makes people less cautious. A general tendency in that direction helps the explanation instead of weakening it.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.