PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 9
Having cameras at traffic intersections to automatically ticket(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe revenue raised(14 more words not shown)
- BAutomatically generated tickets(12 more words not shown)
- CSide-impact collisions are(12 more words not shown)
- DSide-impact collisions are(8 more words not shown)
- EAutomatically generated tickets(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More crashes doesn't automatically mean less safety. How dangerous are the crashes?
I can imagine a red-light camera prompting a driver to brake suddenly, increasing the chance of a rear-end collision. At the same time, fewer drivers running the light could mean fewer cars being struck from the side. Those are possible ways to understand the pattern, not additional facts we've been given.
Now picture the difference between being hit from the side by a car traveling at 40 miles per hour and being rear-ended while both cars are braking. If the side-impact crashes are much more dangerous, preventing some of those might matter more for safety than the increase in rear-end crashes.
What we’re looking for
The argument counts accidents but concludes something about safety. For a weakener, I'd look for evidence that the two types of accident aren't comparable in danger. We can accept the increase in total accidents and still question the conclusion that safety hasn't improved.
Working the answers
- A
Spending the ticket revenue on other issues doesn't show that cameras improve traffic safety. The author already allows that cameras can raise revenue. We need to challenge the safety conclusion, not identify another possible use for the money.
- B
Undeserved tickets raise a question about fairness or accuracy. They don't establish whether the change in collision types improves or worsens safety. A ticketing system could make unfair mistakes and still affect crash danger in either direction.
- C
Blame isn't the comparison we need. Knowing which driver usually causes a side-impact collision doesn't tell us how dangerous it is relative to a rear-impact collision. The conclusion concerns safety, not who should be held responsible.
- DCorrect
The collisions that become less frequent are much more dangerous than the ones that become more frequent. That makes the total number of accidents an unreliable guide to the safety change. A reduction in especially dangerous crashes could outweigh an increase in less dangerous ones. D doesn't say all side-impact collisions disappear or prove that the tradeoff is beneficial, but it gives us a strong reason to question the author's conclusion.
- E
Ticketing the owner instead of the driver raises another fairness problem. It doesn't compare the safety threat posed by the two kinds of collision. A flaw in who gets punished doesn't establish whether people face less danger at these intersections.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.