Top Law Schools

#9

This problem really is bugging me. I am generally flawless on flaw questions, forgive the pun, and I can state the flaw here in abstract terms, but cannot equate that to choice D in my head. The flaw is that letter to the editor writer does not take into account that although vehicle fatality rate are rising in areas with lower speed limits, it does not state that fatality rates are rising in higher speed limit areas as well, which would ruin the author's prescriptive conclusion.

D talks about "other areas" which seems out of scope.



#12

I do not know how (A) is correct. Winslow stated that the reason for the regular appearance criticism towards the environment in articles is because editors prefer daring articles that challenge the prevailing political positions and not antienvironmental bias.

How is Winslow proven correct?

#9 - The original statement in the article was presumably, was about lower speed limit areas AS COMPARED TO higher speed limit areas. (Areas other than "lower speed limit ones" can only be "higher speed limit ones"). The writers counterpoint addresses only lower speed limit areas without comparing it to anything. Hypothetically, accidents could be up across the board because of bad weather. That is the flaw - he doesn't address the rate in "other areas".


I didn't like number 12. The best of all the poor answers seemed to me that "Winslow is correct' because of this sentence in the passage: "It is true that editors like to run anti environmental pieces mainly because they seem to challenge the political orthodoxy." That is all Winslow said, isn't it? The rest of the passage, relative to this aspect, is pure puffery.