LSAT 37, Logical Reasoning I, Q25, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: In a car accident, air bags greatly…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken 

CONCLUSION: You aren’t any safer in a car with air bags.

REASONING: Air bags lower the risk of serious injury. But cars without air bags have more accidents.

ANALYSIS: Try to think of a situation that is consistent with the stimulus, but that shows airbags are effective.

For example, cars with air bags could only be 1% more likely to be involved in an accident. And those accidents could be minor. Meanwhile, air bags could lower the risk of serious injury by 80%.

When I put it that way, would you rather be in a car with air bags or without them? 

___________

1. The argument doesn’t say this. It just points out that cars with air bags are more likely to be in an accident, on average.
2. The argument didn’t say whether cars without air bags have other safety features. 
3. The argument implies this occurs. It’s talking about probabilities: cars with air bags are more likely to have accidents. But of course both groups can have accidents.
4. CORRECT. I’d rather be in more accidents but avoid serious injury. The reverse sounds painful. 
5. The argument doesn’t say this. Some very minor accidents might not require air bags.

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---