ilikebaseball wrote: flash21 wrote:
ilikebaseball wrote:Quick question on PT 23 S2 #26.
Its the one about restrictions on teenage drivers. I picked A. It's a weakenX question. How does the fact that teenagers drive an older car weaken the fact that teenagers lack basic driving skills? Just because a car is less stable doesnt make it any less of a car.
I don't have the question in front of me, but I think I remember why.
It actually acts as an alternative reason for them being in more accidents (or fatal accidents, I forget). It is an alternative because perhaps instead of them lacking basic driving skills, they simply drive shittier cars which are therefore more dangerous, giving the illusion that they lack driving skills, when they don't, they just lack money to get a decent vehicle.
The choice states "Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers." I still dont see how this equates to accidents. Like, how does a shitty car make one more liable to getting in an accident. It doesnt say " They drive older, therefore harder to function cars." It just says "less stable"
Okay im looking at the question now. The latter part of the stimulus basically says, they make up a lesser part of the driving population, and responsible for double that of traffic fatalities. Therefore, they lack basic driving skills.
(A) states that they drive older and less stable cars. This means that yes, they may make up more fatal accidents but it is NOT because of the lack of driving skills, its because of their tendency to drive less stable and older cars.
What I think you're confused about is that, from what I understand, you're interpreting it to mean that this makes them MORE likely to get into an accident. Thats not what its saying. It saying when the accident occurs, its fatal for another reason ASIDE from the fact they lack basic driving skills, which hurts the cause and effect relationship (cause being lack of basic driving skills, effect being more fatalities).
Do I make sense?