LSAT 105 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q10

LR Question 10 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We could save lives if we got rid of all red cars.

REASONING: Red cars are more likely to be in accidents.

ANALYSIS: This is a bad argument. It could be true that red cars are simply magnets for destruction and you should never drive them.

Or it could be that aggressive, reckless drivers prefer flashy red cars and those drivers are also more likely to be involved in crashes.

Correlation is not causation. Just because two things happen together doesn’t mean one causes the other.

___________

1. It’s only important whether insurance companies are correct that red cars are more likely to have accidents.
2. Repair costs don’t matter if we’re trying to prevent accidents.
3. CORRECT. It could be the drivers and not the cars that are dangerous.
4. It doesn’t matter what percentage of red cars have accidents as long as the percentage is higher for red cars than for other cars.
5. Not at all. Where did it say that every accident causes death?
    
   The argument just made the warranted assumption that some accidents are deadly. So if we prevent accidents, then we’ll probably save some lives.

Recap: The question begins with “Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.