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?
- 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.
- The argument didn’t say whether cars without air bags have other safety features.
- 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.
- CORRECT. I’d rather be in more accidents but avoid serious injury. The reverse sounds painful.
- The argument doesn’t say this. Some very minor accidents might not require air bags.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly