- Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:47 am
#27274
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%. The correct answer choice is (E)
This Numbers and Percentages question provides another example in which an LSAT author provides limited information and draws an overly broad conclusion. The only information provided is the number of pedestrian deaths under the two referenced circumstances. The problem is that without the bigger picture, we don’t have enough information to assess which action is more dangerous.
If crossing with the light were exactly as common as crossing against the light, then the given statistics would support the author’s conclusion. In this case, though, we have no idea how common each action is relative to the other. This can be understood with a simple hypothetical case:
Total number of crossings made with the light in one week:
100
Total number of crossings made against the light in one week: 100
If this were the case, then a greater number of deaths under the “crossing with the light” category would suggest greater danger associated with that category.
But let’s consider another hypothetical case:
Total number of crossings made with the light in one week: 100
Total number of crossings made against the light in one week: 1
If this were the case, then we could not logically draw any conclusions based on the limited information that the number of deaths crossing with the light is greater (because given these relative proportions, we might expect the number of deaths under the second category (among crossings made against the light) to be greater, not as a result of greater inherent danger, based as a result of that act’s far greater frequency alone.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because there is no clear reason to presume any bias among the “several recent studies…and statistics.” Answer choices (B) and (C) both describe common causal errors, but these mistakes are not made by our author, who instead draws an overly broad conclusion without sufficient information. Answer choice (D) presents a consideration that is not required of the author’s argument, which need not include an exhaustive list of studies from every possible environment.
Only correct answer choice (E) accurately describes the author’s flaw: the argument presumes that a greater number of deaths means greater danger, without considering the role that the activity’s frequency may have on those figures.
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%. The correct answer choice is (E)
This Numbers and Percentages question provides another example in which an LSAT author provides limited information and draws an overly broad conclusion. The only information provided is the number of pedestrian deaths under the two referenced circumstances. The problem is that without the bigger picture, we don’t have enough information to assess which action is more dangerous.
If crossing with the light were exactly as common as crossing against the light, then the given statistics would support the author’s conclusion. In this case, though, we have no idea how common each action is relative to the other. This can be understood with a simple hypothetical case:
Total number of crossings made with the light in one week:
100Total number of crossings made against the light in one week:
100 If this were the case, then a greater number of deaths under the “crossing with the light” category would suggest greater danger associated with that category.
But let’s consider another hypothetical case:
Total number of crossings made with the light in one week:
100Total number of crossings made against the light in one week:
1 If this were the case, then we could not logically draw any conclusions based on the limited information that the number of deaths crossing with the light is greater (because given these relative proportions, we might expect the number of deaths under the second category (among crossings made against the light) to be greater, not as a result of greater inherent danger, based as a result of that act’s far greater frequency alone.
Answer choice (A) is incorrect, because there is no clear reason to presume any bias among the “several recent studies…and statistics.” Answer choices (B) and (C) both describe common causal errors, but these mistakes are not made by our author, who instead draws an overly broad conclusion without sufficient information. Answer choice (D) presents a consideration that is not required of the author’s argument, which need not include an exhaustive list of studies from every possible environment.
Only correct answer choice (E) accurately describes the author’s flaw: the argument presumes that a greater number of deaths means greater danger, without considering the role that the activity’s frequency may have on those figures.