## PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
catsparka

Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:50 pm

### PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

This is the question with people involved in automobile accidents, and whether one is less likely to be injured in an automobile accidence if one drives a large car.

I initially eliminated the correct answer because I thought it actually supported the conclusion. I thought it meant, despite the fact that large vehicles are more likely to be involved in accidents, a lower percentage of them result in injury.

I was stuck on this question for a long time since none of the answers seemed correct. Can anyone help explain why the corrected answer is indeed the correct answer?

Thanks so much!

rso11

Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 9:25 pm

### Re: PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

I remember having trouble with this question too. My thought process was:

The conclusion says you're less likely to be injured in a big car. But what if the majority of cars in the road are large cars and therefore a low percentage could actually mean a high number of accidents? If you add (D) to that, not only can you have a scenario where there are more large cars on the road than small cars, large cars are more likely to be in accidents. So you're not less likely to be injured in a large car.

None of these answers were really strong for me; I'd appreciate anyone else chiming in with an explanation as well.

Sandro

Posts: 2526
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am

### Re: PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

D - If the conclusion in the stim is = Drive Large Car = less likely to get inured than small car, period.

based on this premise - people driving large cars were only injured at lets say, 5% of the time. Small car drivers were injured 15% of the time in accidents.

D gets at this - the stimulus deals with relative percentages, no absolute values besides total cars which is not defined how many large/small make up each. So if there were 10,000 people, with 9000 driving large and 1000 driving small. 450(5%) were injured driving large cars, while 150(15%) were injured in small cars.

450 large vs 150 small - out of 10k cars, youre more likely to get injured driving a large car. Yea, your relative likelihood in a large car vs the rest of large cars is lower... but if large cars make up a larger amount of total car crashes, this goes out the window.

This was pretty easy because ABCE all had no relation and did not weaken any reasoning in the argument. D takes some thinking but its a classic relative % = absolute % question, which comes up a lot and is usually suspect...

PostHawk

Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:11 pm

### Re: PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

catsparka wrote:This is the question with people involved in automobile accidents, and whether one is less likely to be injured in an automobile accidence if one drives a large car.

I initially eliminated the correct answer because I thought it actually supported the conclusion. I thought it meant, despite the fact that large vehicles are more likely to be involved in accidents, a lower percentage of them result in injury.

I was stuck on this question for a long time since none of the answers seemed correct. Can anyone help explain why the corrected answer is indeed the correct answer?

Thanks so much!

Here's the way I looked at it:
There is a definite shift in the argument from percentages to actual numbers.

I did a hypothetical situation in my head:
It says the study was of 10,000 people involved in a car accident. So initially I assumed the numbers were pretty even (5000 small cars and 5000 large cars) and the argument says that a low percentage (10%) were injured in large cars and a high percentage (50%) were injured in small cars. so Large Car Injuries = 500 & Small car Injuries = 2500. Thus the conclusion is valid in saying that you are more likely to be injured in small car than a large car. So apply D to the hypothetical and it changes everything. Making a new hypothetical with 9000 Large cars and 1000 small cars and applying the same percentages as above 10% and 50%, respectively, the numbers come out to 900 injuries in Large cars and 500 injuries in Small cars.

Hope that helps!

Edit: Apparently someone beat me to the explanation... oh well...

catsparka

Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 4:50 pm

### Re: PT# 59 LR2 Q#13

Yeah, I understand now. Thanks so much everyone!

Good luck on Saturday (if you're taking it then)!

Return to â€œLSAT Prep and Discussion Forumâ€?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests