Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaWeaken

Traffic Safety Analyst: In an effort to reduce nighttime pedestrian collisions, the city of Bellview recently installed high-contrast reflective crosswalks at fifty major intersections. Over the subsequent six months, nighttime pedestrian collisions at these intersections decreased by twenty percent relative to the previous six months. Because no other roadway modifications were made at these intersections during this period, the new reflective crosswalks clearly caused the reduction in collisions by making pedestrians more visible to drivers.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the traffic safety analyst's argument?

  1. A
    Surveys conducted during the six months following installation showed that drivers in Bellview reported noticing pedestrians sooner at intersections equipped with reflective paint.
  2. B
    The reflective paint applied to the fifty crosswalks began showing noticeable surface wear and discoloration within four months of installation.
  3. Shortly before the crosswalks were installed, a nearby bridge closure permanently diverted over one-third of nighttime vehicular traffic away from the streets containing the fifty intersections.Cevap
  4. D
    Metropolitan traffic safety interventions are never uniformly effective across different types of urban road layouts under severe winter weather conditions.
  5. E
    Several pedestrian advocacy groups in Bellview raised concerns that reflective crosswalks could give pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing at night.

Cevap

The argument is most seriously weakened by demonstrating that a major bridge closure diverted over one-third of nighttime vehicular traffic away from the intersections, providing an alternate explanation for the collision reduction.
The analyst concludes that the crosswalk paint caused the reduction in pedestrian accidents by improving visibility. The statement detailing a major bridge closure that diverted over one-third of nighttime vehicular traffic away from these intersections directly undermines this conclusion by providing an obvious alternative explanation: with fewer cars on the road, collisions decreased regardless of driver visibility.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the premises and the main conclusion of the argument.
Premises: 50 intersections received reflective crosswalks, nighttime pedestrian collisions dropped 20% over six months, and no other road modifications occurred. Conclusion: The reflective crosswalks caused the reduction in collisions by increasing visibility.
Isolating the core causal claim is essential for identifying the logical gap.
2
Identify the unstated assumption linking the correlation to causation.
The author assumes that no other external factor (such as changes in traffic volume or pedestrian density) was responsible for the decline in nighttime collisions.
Causal arguments on the LSAT frequently overlook alternate causes or confounding variables.
3
Select the choice that provides an alternative explanation for the 20% decline in nighttime collisions.
A substantial diversion of nighttime traffic due to a bridge closure explains why fewer collisions occurred, independently of whether the crosswalks improved visibility.
Introducing an alternate cause breaks the inferred link between the reflective paint and the reduction in accidents.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Alternate Explanations in Causal Arguments
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Weaken

Bu konudan daha fazla soru