pt 37.. first LR section

User avatar
paulshortys10
Posts: 619
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:03 pm

pt 37.. first LR section

Postby paulshortys10 » Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:18 am

Was this harder than usual?
Can someone explain the reasoning for the answers on 17 and 22?

motiontodismiss
Posts: 870
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:36 pm

Re: pt 37.. first LR section

Postby motiontodismiss » Sat Nov 06, 2010 7:46 am

paulshortys10 wrote:Was this harder than usual?
Can someone explain the reasoning for the answers on 17 and 22?


Wondering about this as well (the first question). -7 on LR1 and -3 on LR2. SOMETHING has to be up.

User avatar
AverageTutoring
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 10:18 pm

Re: pt 37.. first LR section

Postby AverageTutoring » Sat Nov 06, 2010 11:21 am

Question 17

Discrepancy

A report suggests that traffic fatalities decrease when seat belt rules are strictly enforced. But in a certain City where seat belt rules have been strictly enforced for two years the number of traffic fatalities has remained the same.

Note

There could be something exterior to the stimulus that would increase the number of traffic fatalities per year mitigating the effects of the seat belt law.

Answers

A: If the speed limit is higher there might be more opportunity for crashes and fatalities.

B: Absolutely. If the number of automobile traffic deaths decreased but the city now reports pedestrian deaths due to automobile accidents it would make the situation appear is if no less fatalities have occurred.

C: The report is undoubtedly talking about city averages but if this city experiences an abnormal amount of traffic those results may no longer be valid.

D: If the seat belt laws are not enforced then how can they have the effect mentioned in the stimulus? Realistically…they cant. Not to mention the stimulus explicitly says “strict laws.” An unenforced law is not a strict law!

E: This doesn’t resolve the paradox because it doesn’t speak to the effectiveness of the laws, on average. For example, say we had 1000 motorists in the city and before the laws came out 10 motorists died per year in automotive accidents. All of which were wearing seat belts. Now say the laws come into effect and only 5 motorists per year die in automotive accidents. All of which WERE NOT wearing seatbelts.

Clearly the laws CAN coincide with a decrease in the amount of fatalities despite all of those involved in the accidents not wearing seatbelts. So the fact that people were not wearing seatbelts doesn’t explain why the laws were not effective. Paradox not resolved then.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, Baby Gaga, laqueredup, ngogirl12, PresidentIJohnson, Vino.Veritas and 5 guests