- Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:40 pm
#92982
I do think answer B is irrelevant, paytenpar2014, so good work! We shouldn't be concerned with what caused accidents prior to 1955 (and the answer is even worse because it only deals with what caused most of the accidents, rather than all of them), but with what caused the reduction in accidents after that date. And perhaps the legislation could impact carelessness in some way, like by requiring training that leads to greater care, or by creating safer work environments in which carelessness would be less likely to cause a serious injury?
Look for some alternate cause for the reduction in injuries, or some problem with the data, or the cause without the effect, etc. Answer B doesn't provide any of those things that usually weaken a causal argument!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam