Q12 - Despite the fact that antilock

[emarxnj]

I put C for this one. I was stuck between this and the correct response (E), but I'm really not sure why one was a better choice. C seems irrelevant to me, as in, it doesn't say people aren't receiving said maintenance, it just says how its inconvenient. Thanks for any help!

[timmydoeslsat]

I put C for this one. I was stuck between this and the correct response (E), but I'm really not sure why one was a better choice. C seems irrelevant to me, as in, it doesn't say people aren't receiving said maintenance, it just says how its inconvenient. Thanks for any help!

This is a "help" to resolve the paradox question. Four of these answer choices will help, one will not.

Our paradox is that antilock brake cars have more accidents than cars without antilock brakes. This is perplexing because antilock brakes are designed to make driving safer.

A) Would help to explain why AL brake cars have more accidents. If most cars with AL brakes are driver more carelessly than the cars without them, then a reasonable outcome would be more accidents.

B) If it were true that AL brakes malfunction more often than regular, then you could reasonably expect more accidents. Just because AL brakes were DESIGNED to be safer does not mean it cannot malfunction more often, causing more accidents.

C) This is not a slam dunk help to resolve answer. I agree with you. However, this could help to explain why even though cars with AL brakes, they can have more accidents than cars without AL brakes. If it is true that it is very expensive maintenance to be "even as effective as regular unmaintained brakes" then we have a situation where people may not do it.

D) Helps to support. Most people with AL brakes in their cars do not know how to use them. So no matter how they were designed, we may have a problem.

E) Accidents of the most serious nature? We do not care about seriousness of accidents, just that the AL brake cars have more of them than cars without AL brakes.

[maryadkins]

Good explanation!

Just to elaborate a tad on (E)--it could help explain a different paradox, which would be why accidents with AL brakes are more serious than accidents in cars with non-AL brakes. But that's not our paradox. Our paradox is about the number of accidents--not how serious they are, as timmydoeslsat said.

[tamwaiman]

Good explanation!

Just to elaborate a tad on (E)--it could help explain a different paradox, which would be why accidents with AL brakes are more serious than accidents in cars with non-AL brakes. But that's not our paradox. Our paradox is about the number of accidents--not how serious they are, as timmydoeslsat said.

Hi Mary

I don't get the message of cars without antilock brakes from (E). Would you explain more? Thank you.

[maryadkins]

We are trying to figure out why there are more accidents in cars without the AL brakes than in cars with AL brakes. We aren't concerned about the seriousness of the accidents. That's what's important to understand about (E). Do you see that?

[anthonyagostino]

I answered C on this as well, and when I did it, I had reservations. The explanations are great, but here is what happened when I was reviewing it, and it cleared the way.

The question asked for which would help resolve the discrepancy EXCEPT.

A- Can be construed and seen as a valid reason to explain the paradox of why, if antilock brakes where safer, why are there more accidents. Because this answer is much like the answer discovered in real life when the seat belt laws came in to effect. Because people felt safer, they drove faster, and created a greater risk for themselves and others than the protection of the seat belt provided, so the increased speed was an unintended side effect of the seat belt. So something that was suppose to help, was going to help IF EVERYTHING ELSE STAYED THE SAME. Here, people drive MORE CARELESS.

B- The brakes DON'T WORK, whether it is real or imagined in irrelevant here. We take the statements at face value. They break down more often, that is a valid reason...Right or wrong in real life does not matter.

C- This is an UNSPOKEN two step ASSUMPTION if you will, or implied ...IT DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT OR WRONG IN REALITY....remember...the question ONLY asked for WOULD HELP..explain an APPARENT .... WOULD HELP...HELP HELP. Even if the contribution is TINY TINY TINY.... If the breaks are hard to repair, then ....assumed they would not be done as often or could be done wrong...etc. etc. etc. ... frail at best....but it can HELP... This is like SPOTTING someone at the gym...THEY push up 300 lbs....and you spot them with 2 fingers....technically..... you are helping.

D- Again....2 steps...they don't know how to use it...so they use it wrong....that creates a problem...and accidents occur that would not have happened, if they had had the regular breaks. They swoop when they should have sweared.....

E- I got here, and MISTAKEN repeated my original MISTAKE and was looking for something to close the gap...and could not get this to fit....and in a burst of rage and frustration....cursed the LSAT authors asking...."WHAT THE BLEEEEEP...DOES .....WORSE accidents have to do with MORE ACCIDENTS.......that is IRRELEVANT... and then I realized...in embarrassed silence.......ops. That was the purpose.

It not hurt the case, and it does not HELP the case....remember this questions that ask about HELP ...EXCEPT... can be any number of things..... Remember if it's worth TWO FINGERS it helps. Even standing next to someone shouting words helps...no contact at all but in some way we can't SEE it helps. Same here. It did not have to fill the gap....just two fingers, a kind word