PT 57, LR sect 3, #10 Bicycle Q

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

PT 57, LR sect 3, #10 Bicycle Q

Postby freddie » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:04 am

b) and c) both seem viable to me, although c) is the credited answer.

i thought that b) was also right because the argument infers bicycle safety equipment in part causes accidents. it seemed to me that the presence of safety equipment in accidents is merely a correlation, since the safety equipment would not cause the accident. but the argument closes by assuming that it was indeed a causal factor.

could someone explain where the hole is my reasoning is, and why b) is incorrect?


Much appreciated.

shoop
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:52 pm

Re: PT 57, LR sect 3, #10 Bicycle Q

Postby shoop » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:21 am

freddie wrote:b) and c) both seem viable to me, although c) is the credited answer.

i thought that b) was also right because the argument infers bicycle safety equipment in part causes accidents. it seemed to me that the presence of safety equipment in accidents is merely a correlation, since the safety equipment would not cause the accident. but the argument closes by assuming that it was indeed a causal factor.

could someone explain where the hole is my reasoning is, and why b) is incorrect?


Much appreciated.


The stim premises are:

1) Failure to obey traffic laws = causal factor in 1/4 of cyclist-involved accidents
2) Inadequate safety equipment = causal factor in 1/4 of cyclist-involved accidents

and then it concludes that HALF (ie 1/4 + 1/4) the cyclist-involved accidents are thus caused by cyclists.

B is wrong because the stimulus STATES that the failure to follow laws and lack of safety equipment have been established as causal factors. C is correct because the conclusion makes the illicit assumption that no one who is disobeying traffic laws on a bike also has inadequate safety equipment. The 1/4 of cyclists who cause accidents by failing to obey laws could also be same 1/4 who don't have adequate safety equipment (or there could be a partial overlap). In this case, 1/4 + 1/4 does not necessarily equal 1/2.

freddie
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 9:34 am

Re: PT 57, LR sect 3, #10 Bicycle Q

Postby freddie » Tue Jun 01, 2010 11:14 am

Thanks; your explanation really helps. I realize now that I was assuming that since safety equipment was only listed as a 'factor' and not a 'causal factor,' that it was not necessarily causal.

One thing still bothers me though: How can inadequate safety equipment cause as accident? I can definitely see how it could make the accident worse. Could a mirror be considered 'safety equipment' and a cracked mirror cause an accident through inability to see surrounding traffic?

Thanks again!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BOSStongrl, Chipotle85, dj9i27, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] and 13 guests