Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardCorrelation vs. Causation

Transportation official: Over the past five years, municipalities that installed adaptive smart-signage at major intersections saw a 15 percent increase in rush-hour traffic volume at those specific locations, while intersections with standard static signs saw no such increase. Clearly, the installation of adaptive smart-signage encourages more motorists to utilize those intersections, thereby worsening traffic congestion.

Which of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the transportation official's reasoning?

  1. A
    It treats a localized increase in traffic volume as proof of an overall increase in the number of vehicles within the municipality.
  2. B
    It confuses an intermediate conclusion regarding the appeal of smart-signage with the ultimate conclusion concerning traffic congestion.
  3. It overlooks the possibility that adaptive smart-signage is typically installed in response to already rising traffic volumes.Answer
  4. D
    It takes for granted that a larger percentage increase in traffic inevitably results in a higher absolute number of vehicles on the road.
  5. E
    It relies on an unstated assumption that intersections equipped with standard static signs are immune to congestion during non-rush-hour times.

Answer

The option stating that it overlooks the possibility that adaptive smart-signage is typically installed in response to already rising traffic volumes.
The correct answer accurately identifies that the official commits a classic correlation-to-causation fallacy. The argument observes that smart-signage and increased traffic occur together, and concludes that the signage must cause the traffic. However, it fails to consider reverse causation: traffic management tools like smart-signage are typically installed precisely at locations where traffic volume is already worsening, meaning the traffic caused the installation, not the other way around.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the premises of the argument.
The premises establish a statistical correlation: intersections with adaptive smart-signage experienced a 15% increase in rush-hour traffic, while those without it did not.
Identifying the evidence is the first step to evaluating the logical structure of any LSAT argument.
2
Identify the main conclusion.
The official concludes that the installation of smart-signage CAUSES the worsening traffic congestion by encouraging motorists to use those intersections.
Understanding the conclusion clarifies exactly what the author is trying to prove based on the premises.
3
Evaluate the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The argument jumps directly from a correlation (signage and traffic happen together) to a definitive causal claim (signage causes traffic).
Recognizing this gap exposes the argument's vulnerability to classic causal fallacies.
4
Formulate potential alternative explanations for the correlation.
A highly plausible alternative is reverse causality: municipalities likely target their smart-signage installations specifically at intersections that are already suffering from worsening traffic.
If reverse causation is possible, the argument's conclusion that the signage causes the traffic is severely weakened.
5
Select the option that matches this logical vulnerability.
The correct option explicitly points out the author's failure to consider that the signage was installed in response to the traffic.
This directly describes the reverse causation flaw present in the stimulus.

Key Concept

Correlation vs. Causation (Reverse Causality)
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Rate this question

Topics

Correlation vs. Causation

More questions from this topic