potentially flawed question PT60, S3, Q21 Forum

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:39 pm

This question has been discussed a bit, but my beef comes from a different perspective than that of others who have raised issues. I maintain that the question borders on demanding outside knowledge.

The correct answer is E. E points to the argument's flaw of going from the results of "carefully designed crash tests" to the conclusion that the minivan is not inherently safer than other cars. It does so by raising additional considerations regarding safety that aren't included in a crash test (if these considerations were included, then the information in E would be meaningless as it's not much of an issue if the minivan does poorly on some parts of a crash test if it exceeds in many others and ends up just about as safe as the other tested cars). My problem is that the question requires that we know/assume that braking and emergency handling are not covered in a crash test.

I'd appreciate some thoughts.

midwest17 · Post by **midwest17** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:43 pm

I haven't looked at the question, so take this with a grain of salt, but based on what you've said here: you have no evidence given in the prompt, presumably, to establish that a crash test measures everything relevant to safety. It's not that they expect you to know what is or isn't covered by a crash test, it's that they expect you to not assume that a crash test covers everything without evidence.

But like I said, I haven't seen the question.

downbeat14 · Post by **downbeat14** » Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:50 pm

MistakenGenius · Post by **MistakenGenius** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:08 am

Post removed.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 12:19 am

Why is C a TERRIBLE choice? It eliminates an alternative explanation for the injury record: there are less injuries because there tend to be less people in any given minivan, therefore reducing the number of injuries per licensed vehicle.

How essential is it to recognize the gap/stretch between the author's evidence (the crash test) and the conclusion (eliminating inherent safety as an explanation)? Can we say that E is only a good answer so long as we do not assume that the considerations listed in E aren't included in a crash test?

MistakenGenius · Post by **MistakenGenius** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 1:11 am

Post removed.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 8:25 am

Thanks for the detailed response. The reason I liked C is not because of what it says but what it logically implies - the low injury per car rate is not because there tend to be less people in minivans than other cars. Do you agree with this line of reasoning? C's being true adds weight to the author's conclusion, making it more likely that safe drivers are the cause by eliminating a possibility not considered.

The way I am seeing things now is that C does strengthen the argument. The problem is that C doesn't address the clear flaw in the argument : going from a crash test to a broad conclusion about safety.

What do you think?

LSAT Hacks (Graeme) · Post by **LSAT Hacks (Graeme)** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:00 pm

Seoulless wrote:Thanks for the detailed response. The reason I liked C is not because of what it says but what it logically implies - the low injury per car rate is not because there tend to be less people in minivans than other cars. Do you agree with this line of reasoning? C's being true adds weight to the author's conclusion, making it more likely that safe drivers are the cause by eliminating a possibility not considered.

The way I am seeing things now is that C does strengthen the argument. The problem is that C doesn't address the clear flaw in the argument : going from a crash test to a broad conclusion about safety.

What do you think?

I had this exact same thought process recently when a student asked about C. I couldn't eliminate it. I checked around and found no good explanations. Am I missing something. I thought it eliminated an alternate cause, thereby strengthening the conclusion.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 3:09 pm

I am glad you chimed in, Graeme. it adds credibility to my issue.

What do you think of my explanation as to why E is better (it addresses the immediate flaw in the argument of going from crash tests to safety in general).

I am provisionally willing to concede that we are not to assume that braking and handling are covered in a crash test and that by crash test they mean impact test (what happens when u hit the car going at various speeds).

The problem is that braking is at least sometimes included in crash tests.* A crash test is a relatively well-defined, industry term. I would take issue with LSAT using such a term in a literal sense when it's meaning is in fact far deeper.

*http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/rating ... tion-tests

foggynotion · Post by **foggynotion** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 7:55 pm

Choice C doesn't strengthen the arguement, it only supports a premise, as someone already pointed out. If the issue of the argument had been about whether minivans are actually safer than other cars, or does it just seem that way because of their low number of injuries, then it would work. But that is not the issue. It's given already that minivans have the lowest number of injuries per licensed vehicle and when judged by that standard are the safest. The issue is why they have the lowest numbers of injuries. C doesn't address that, it only underscores what we've already accepted. Also, the argument, in a way, defines a crash test as a vehicle's ability to protect it's occupants when there is a crash. The stuff mentioned in E wouldn't matter once a crash has taken place. You don't need to already know all the details of a crash test. What they tell you, combined with a little common knowledge, is enough, I would say.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:37 pm

How does it not also eliminate an alternative explanation for the low injury rate. The rate in question is the NUMBER of injuries per licensed vehicle. If there are 500000 people on average in a mini van, it certainly reinforces the premise that minivans are safe, BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.

robotrick · Post by **robotrick** » Tue Sep 02, 2014 11:52 pm

Seoulless wrote:How does it not also eliminate an alternative explanation for the low injury rate. The rate in question is the NUMBER of injuries per licensed vehicle. If there are 500000 people on average in a mini van, it certainly reinforces the premise that minivans are safe, BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.

Don't lose sight of the argument - it's the drivers rather than the vehicle. More people in the car could go either way (maybe the car really is safer in some way that isn't measured?). E points to the drivers.

P.J.Fry · Post by **P.J.Fry** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:54 am

The conclusion of the argument is:

"Thus, the reason minivans have such a good safety record is probably not that they are inherently safer than other vehicles, but rather that they are driven primarily by low-risk drivers."

C does not suggest in any way that minivans are not inherently safer
C could suggest they are driven by low-risk individuals if you made a huge leap to say that drivers with lots of passengers tend to be lower risk because they have more of a conscience burden on them, are responsible for their own or others' kids etc.. That is the kind of leap in logic that the LSAT would not have you make.

E pretty much explicitly says that minivans are not inherently safer because their braking and emergency handling capabilities are worse. That would suggest that they should be less safe than other vehicles if it were not for some other factor (eg. low risk drivers). Seems to strengthen the argument pretty good to me.

Note: Remember, the correct answer choice only needs to strengthen the argument in some way. It does not mean it would make it an iron-clad must be true argument.

foggynotion · Post by **foggynotion** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 5:05 am

BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.;

The author is trying to explain why minivans have lower-than-average injuries per vehicle yet have average crash test results. His conclusion (that the vehicles aren't actually safer, they're just driven by low risk drivers) implied that he thinks that these minivans are less likely to get into accidents in the first place because of their drivers, not because of the vans themselves. Even if there were 500,000 people in every minivan, all that would show is that very few of them were getting injured, but that wouldn't help show that they aren't inherently safer than other vehicles. If minivans carried 500,000 per vehicle but only had one injury per vehicle, and other vehicles averaged 4 people and averaged four injuries, I think all it would show is that less people were getting injured in minivans, but we wouldn't know why. It could still be because the vehicle is safer.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:05 am

foggynotion wrote:
BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.;
The author is trying to explain why minivans have lower-than-average injuries per vehicle yet have average crash test results. His conclusion (that the vehicles aren't actually safer, they're just driven by low risk drivers) implied that he thinks that these minivans are less likely to get into accidents in the first place because of their drivers, not because of the vans themselves. Even if there were 500,000 people in every minivan, all that would show is that very few of them were getting injured, but that wouldn't help show that they aren't inherently safer than other vehicles. If minivans carried 500,000 per vehicle but only had one injury per vehicle, and other vehicles averaged 4 people and averaged four injuries, I think all it would show is that less people were getting injured in minivans, but we wouldn't know why. It could still be because the vehicle is safer.

You are right that if there were 500,000 people per minivan, that information alone would not tell us that minivans are inherently safer. BUT, it would tell us that an alternative explanation for the low injury rate is eliminated. This alternative explanation is that the injury rate is low because there really aren't a lot of people traveling in any given minivan. It precludes a situation where there are 500,000 people traveling in all other cars, but only 1 traveling in minivans. If this were the case, then it isn't surprising that minivans have a lower injury rate per vehicle.

So in short, the interest in C is not what it says. The interest is its implication.

BillsFan9907 · Post by **BillsFan9907** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 11:07 am

robotrick wrote:
Seoulless wrote:How does it not also eliminate an alternative explanation for the low injury rate. The rate in question is the NUMBER of injuries per licensed vehicle. If there are 500000 people on average in a mini van, it certainly reinforces the premise that minivans are safe, BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.
Don't lose sight of the argument - it's the drivers rather than the vehicle. More people in the car could go either way (maybe the car really is safer in some way that isn't measured?). E points to the drivers.

So what you are saying is that at this point, explanations other than safe drivers or safe vehicles are extraneous and therefore we can safely assume they are already out of scope?

robotrick · Post by **robotrick** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 12:31 pm

Seoulless wrote:
robotrick wrote:
Seoulless wrote:How does it not also eliminate an alternative explanation for the low injury rate. The rate in question is the NUMBER of injuries per licensed vehicle. If there are 500000 people on average in a mini van, it certainly reinforces the premise that minivans are safe, BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.
Don't lose sight of the argument - it's the drivers rather than the vehicle. More people in the car could go either way (maybe the car really is safer in some way that isn't measured?). E points to the drivers.
So what you are saying is that at this point, explanations other than safe drivers or safe vehicles are extraneous and therefore we can safely assume they are already out of scope?

Basically, yes. It's a matter of taking the argument as a whole rather than breaking it up. The whole thing is that it is safe drivers and not safe vehicles. So that really only leaves two ways to strengthen.

That's my analysis, anyway.

P.J.Fry · Post by **P.J.Fry** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:12 pm

Seoulless wrote:
robotrick wrote:
Seoulless wrote:How does it not also eliminate an alternative explanation for the low injury rate. The rate in question is the NUMBER of injuries per licensed vehicle. If there are 500000 people on average in a mini van, it certainly reinforces the premise that minivans are safe, BUT it ALSO eliminates the alternative possibility that the injury rate is low because there are less people in a mini van, on average, than other cars.
Don't lose sight of the argument - it's the drivers rather than the vehicle. More people in the car could go either way (maybe the car really is safer in some way that isn't measured?). E points to the drivers.
So what you are saying is that at this point, explanations other than safe drivers or safe vehicles are extraneous and therefore we can safely assume they are already out of scope?

Yes, you only need to strengthen the argument. You don't scientifically prove yourself what is or is not responsible for the low injury rate.

foggynotion · Post by **foggynotion** » Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:30 pm

I guess what I'm trying to say is this:

The argument is saying: "You are safer if you're in a minivan, but because of the driver, not the van."

Choice C leads to: "It could have been the case that you're not really safer in a minivan, it just looked that way because of the bogus numbers. But the numbers aren't bogus. So...."

....you really are safer in a minivan. Possibly because of the van.

I believe it addresses the idea that you may not be safer in a minivan at all, which is not the issue the author is dealing with.