LR Question 7 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The “safety” features are useless.
REASONING: Most pedestrian injuries happen at cross-walks with “safety” features.
ANALYSIS: This argument mixes up relative and absolute. Safety features improve relative safety. That means they make you safer.
Meanwhile, the safety of the crosswalks is absolute. They are either “safe” or “unsafe”. So, the crosswalks in question could be extremely dangerous (an absolute measure). That’s why they have safety features. The features make them safer, but not safe.
My explanation may seem rather abstract, but once you grasp this relative/absolute difference, you’ll see it everywhere. Think deeply about this one. Here are some examples.
“You are safer with a fire extinguisher in a burning building, but you are not safe.“
“You are less healthy if you skip the gym one week, but you are probably not unhealthy.“
___________
- CORRECT. If the safety features are placed only at the most dangerous intersections, then maybe those intersections would be even more dangerous without the features.
- This isn’t a flaw! If a safety feature really did fail to prevent injuries, why would we want it?
- The argument didn’t say this! No other safety features were mentioned. For a flaw answer to be correct, it has to happen.
- Think about what this answer really means. It’s insane. If the sidewalks in question have no other safety features, that means that every sidewalk in the country with stripes and flashing lights literally has no other features, such as a crosswalk sign.
The author didn’t assume this, and I don’t know why they would. You have to take answers literally. This one is rather extreme. - Totally irrelevant. The author doesn’t say anything about injuries to drivers.
Recap: The question begins with “More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. To practice more Flawed Reasoning questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Thanks for the explanation.
I think the problem with B is its mentioning something that the speaker didn’t actually say or assume, at least as far as the stimulus goes. The entire basis is a comparison of number of injuries. That’s the best explanation I can give for this one.
I also think that your explanation isn’t necessarily correct as a typical “LSAT-common-sense” idea. A safety feature which fails to reduce the number of injuries might still reduce the SEVERITY of the injuries (and thus can be a good investment).
I would like to see some more thoughts of yours regarding B. I will certainly pick A, but B is mysterious for me. I’m not 100% sure it isn’t a part of the speaker’s intended structure, and in that case since it would be an unstated assumption it can be marked as a flaw.
Thanks!
Good point, it’s possible that a safety feature could be helpful if it reduces severity but not number of incidents.
The real reason B is wrong is: the author didn’t say that. That’s the reason 98% of flaw answers are wrong. They simply didn’t occur in the argument. An answer can’t be a flaw if the author didn’t say it.
Taking for granted would mean that the author literally provided no evidence in support of their conclusion.
This is awesome!! Thank you for making this resource available to everyone