LSAT 105 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q22

LR Question 22 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: Supporters of the proposed law that would …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Supporters of a bicycle helmet law are misguided.

REASONING: Deaths are much more prevalent with pedestrian accidents and drunk driving accidents, yet there’s no ban for walking on the street or alcohol.

ANALYSIS: That’s silly. Instead of evaluating whether helmets effectively reduce risk, it’s rejecting a reasonable safety measure by comparing it to less directly related, extreme examples.

Also, even if the measures for pedestrian and drunk driving accidents were reasonable, the argument would still be flawed. For example, if it said we shouldn’t enact bicycle helmet laws because pedestrian accidents are much more prevalent and we don’t have jaywalking laws, that’s still a flaw. Just because other risks are greater and we haven’t addressed them, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t address any smaller dangers.

___________

1. This would be correct if the biker argued helmets are pointless because biking is already so dangerous.
2. CORRECT. It rejects a targeted safety measure because other unrelated risks cause more harm. And it also uses an unreasonable comparison, like the editorial.
3. The grounds for rejecting the proposal here are actually quite logical, in comparison to the absurdity of the editorial.
4. Same as C. This isn’t flawed.
5. This suggests modifying the proposal, it’s not outright rejecting it.