PrepTest 20, Section #1, Question #10-HELP PLZ Forum

[LSAT_Padawan]

This is the FLAWED REASONING question (paraphrasing) where it asks you to identify the flaw in the argument about the insurance companies charging higher premiums for ppl who drive red cars; the author states that if we simply eliminate red cars altogether, we could save countless of lives. Why is the answer not (D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved in accidents or (E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life? Rather the correct answer is (C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars.

Thanks in advance for your input.

[Shrimps]

The text says "a greater percentage of red cars are involved.. than cars of any other color".

Do you really think stating the actual percentage (say 15% of all red cars, 5% of all other cars get into accidents) is in any way going to refute the conclusion?

(E) is flat out false. The author nowhere makes "an unsupported assumption that every.. accident results in some loss of life". Read the text again. THe only thing the author says is "lives could be saved by banning red cars".

This is an incredibly simple question. Really, when you read the argument "red cars are involved in more accidents on average, therefore, let's ban red cars so we have fewer accidents", does it not strike you as silly? If your mind did not immediately jump to the obvious alternative explanation (perhaps it's the drivers of red cars who are reckless, not the red cars themselves"), perhaps you need to take a break from the LSAT and work on your real-life logic.

[deminion]

I think people tend to over analyze simple problems - I am guilty of this too. The LSAT loves throwing curve balls at people, so people are always on their toes. I agree with Shrimps...take a day off and relax.

[LSAT_Padawan]

I was so focused on the last sentence of the stimulus, "if this claim is true, than lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars..." and trying to explain why the flawed reasoning in the author's statement; that is why I picked (E) presuming that the author made "unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life." As Shrimps so kindly put it, my "real-life local tells me, it's not the color of the car or type of car for that matter that causes accidents, it's the people behind the wheel (i.e. guns don't kill ppl, ppl kill ppl). Thanks again!