LR Question 19 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: In Australia the population that is of driving age has…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken – Exception
CONCLUSION: Australian drivers are more skilled than five years ago.
REASONING: There are more Australian drivers, but fewer traffic deaths.
ANALYSIS: This sounds like a good argument, but there are many, many factors that can affect how many people die in traffic accidents.
Note that we’re talking about deaths, not the number of accidents. LSAT questions often talk about traffic accidents, and they’ll switch between deaths and accidents, which aren’t the same thing.
___________
- This could mean that seat-belts save lives, even if drivers aren’t any better.
- Better roads are safer roads. This could explain why fewer people died.
- If you drive less often, there are fewer chances for you to have an accident. This lack of driving could explain the lower number of deaths.
- The stimulus talked about traffic fatalities, not the number of accidents. So if there are more hospitals, more people could be kept alive.
- CORRECT. This supports the argument. A driver training program makes drivers more skilled.
Recap: The question begins with “In Australia the population that is of driving age has”. It is a Weaken question. Learn how to master LSAT Weaken questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
More Resources for Weaken Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.
I got this wrong in the test. But, with regard to the explanation to D, I see why it’s wrong, but I think the explanation is not clear.
My take: D weakens the argument because it implies that DESPITE overall traffic fatalities going down, this could include roadside fatalities, and not account for other accident > injury > emergency room deaths.
E in fact strengthens it so its clearly the right answer, but I was overeager and didn’t read carefully in this case.