Q19 - In Australia the population that

[andyevans000]

I can easily tick off A through C as weakening the argument, and I carelessly threw out E with a similar mindset--even though I now see it is the correct answer. However, I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around why D is incorrect. To me, it seems like it doesn't have any effect on the argument--let alone weakens it.

[dtangie23]

Let me give it a shot before the experts chime in...

Premise #1: The population of the driving age has increased over the past 5 years.

Premise #2: The number of FATALITIES has declined.

Conclusion: We have more skillful drivers than five years ago.

Remember, we are judging the skill level of drivers based on the decline in FATALITIES.

But what if there is an alternative explanation to this decline? Answer choice (D) provides this. If the number of emergency room facilities have increased, then that can certainly help to prevent fatalities-- meaning that the skill level of drivers does not necessarily account for the decline. It could very well be the availability of extra medical care that has caused the decline in fatalities.

The alternative explanation weakens the argument, which is why (D) is incorrect.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great explanation dtangle23!

That's exactly how I look at this as well. Not sure if you guys ever read "Freakonomics," but this sort of reminds me of one of the stories from that book.

It's a re-evaluation of the effectiveness of the gun laws passed during the Clinton years. In that story the argument is made that banning guns is not what caused the murder rate to go down, as it did during the time period just following the imposition of the gun bans.

Instead it is argued that the number of gunshot wounds remained the same, but the average ambulance ride was shortened significantly, and so people were surviving their gunshot wounds.

I see answer choice (D) similarly. If there are more hospital facilities (which in class, 40% of people read as "fatalities" for some reason) then the time it would take to get to the hospital would be decreased, and likewise, people could be simply surviving their accidents.

Not sure if the story's helpful, but I thought I would share.

[andyevans000]

(which in class, 40% of people read as "fatalities" for some reason)

Here's what it was.

Silver lining is that if I can chalk up my few errors left to reading too quickly or not closely enough, that's easiest to fix.

Thanks for the explanations!

[clarafok]

hello,

i also chose D instead of E. i now understand why D is wrong, but i don't really see why E is the correct answer. is it because E actually strengthens it because the conclusion is that australia has more skillful drivers now, and this was probably a result of the mandatory driver education program mentioned in E?

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly. Answer choice (E) strengthens the argument. It offers support for the claim that Australia consists of more skillful drivers. Answer choices (A) - (D) offer alternative explanations for why the fatality rate declined. As such the each undermine the argument's explanation.

Great work!

[mcrittell]

I understand why E's correct, but I'm still unsure why D's incorrect. I don't see how it relates at all, which led me to believe it didn't weaken the arg.

[shirando21]

It weakens the argument by saying that the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined not because of there are more skillful drivers, but because the enhanced hospital emergency facilities that saved the lives of a lot of people in car accident. As an alternative explanation, D weakens the connection in the argument.

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a very similar question to 23.2.26 and so it merits a similar response.

I think an important point to note here is that the conclusion stems solely from the idea of traffic fatalities. The author believes that, just because traffic fatalities went down in a 5 year period, this means that driving skill went up. This may not be exactly true.

The wrong answers - those that weaken this conclusion - show that the traffic fatalities are NOT representative of raw driving skills.

(A) When drivers get into accidents, everyone in the cars is supposed to be wearing a seatbelt. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(B) The roads are better and thus maybe less accidents occur. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(C) People just simply aren't driving as much. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(D) When drivers do get into accidents, there are more emergency rooms available to care for the patients. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills. If the same amount of serious accidents happen but one is able to get to the hospital quicker, perhaps that is why less people are dying.

(E) This one is tricky because it really SOUNDS like an "alternative explanation" answer choice, just like the first four answer choices. It is worded in a very similar way.

You might think to yourself, "Oh! It was because of a driver's ed program! THAT is why there are less traffic fatalities." However, think about the outcome of a drivers ed program: more skilled drivers.

(E) strengthens because it shows HOW these drivers might have become more skilled. It also tells us that this change happened 5 years ago, precisely the point in time in which traffic fatalities started decreasing.

[josh.randall52]

Did anyone else read "facilities" as "fatalities"?

[huskybins]

Just wonder why B is sure an explanation to weaken the argument. It only states the major road repair started five years ago but never mentioned when the road repair finished. Maybe the road were in state of repair at the time point when the author reported a declined fatalities. Since it is a "Major" repair it could create more traffics flowing in other alternative roads and further increase the likelihood of fatalities (say one of fatality situations: drivers suffering from heart diseases may not be able to get in-time assistance from the ambulance which is stuck on the mid-road of heavy traffic and would be able to otherwise come to offer immediate help should the road repair have had done.)

Also "driver education" in E seems also not a very stringent match to "skillful drivers" -- It is to my humble opinion which is kind of assumption that receiving driver education will sufficiently warrant in gaining more driving skills. If that is what we have to accept such assumption as common sense in order to pass LSAT, then it would be no problem for me to learn and take it.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Just wonder why B is sure an explanation to weaken the argument. It only states the major road repair started five years ago but never mentioned when the road repair finished. Maybe the road were in state of repair at the time point when the author reported a declined fatalities. Since it is a "Major" repair it could create more traffics flowing in other alternative roads and further increase the likelihood of fatalities (say one of fatality situations: drivers suffering from heart diseases may not be able to get in-time assistance from the ambulance which is stuck on the mid-road of heavy traffic and would be able to otherwise come to offer immediate help should the road repair have had done.)

Also "driver education" in E seems also not a very stringent match to "skillful drivers" -- It is to my humble opinion which is kind of assumption that receiving driver education will sufficiently warrant in gaining more driving skills. If that is what we have to accept such assumption as common sense in order to pass LSAT, then it would be no problem for me to learn and take it.

Remember that the argument says that four of the answer choices weaken the argument. Because the question is an EXCEPT question, it doesn't have the language frequently associated with Weaken questions such as "most weakens" or "most undermines." Why that's important is that on Strengthen and Weaken questions we're not supposed to prove or destroy the argument, but just make the conclusion a bit more likely or a bit less likely to be true.

If 5 years ago Australia began major road repairs, we can safely figure that the roads have been improved. Hope that helps!

[HariI324]

This is a very similar question to 23.2.26 and so it merits a similar response.

I think an important point to note here is that the conclusion stems solely from the idea of traffic fatalities. The author believes that, just because traffic fatalities went down in a 5 year period, this means that driving skill went up. This may not be exactly true.

The wrong answers - those that weaken this conclusion - show that the traffic fatalities are NOT representative of raw driving skills.

(A) When drivers get into accidents, everyone in the cars is supposed to be wearing a seatbelt. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(B) The roads are better and thus maybe less accidents occur. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(C) People just simply aren't driving as much. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills.

(D) When drivers do get into accidents, there are more emergency rooms available to care for the patients. That is why less people are dying, not because of raw driving skills. If the same amount of serious accidents happen but one is able to get to the hospital quicker, perhaps that is why less people are dying.

(E) This one is tricky because it really SOUNDS like an "alternative explanation" answer choice, just like the first four answer choices. It is worded in a very similar way.

You might think to yourself, "Oh! It was because of a driver's ed program! THAT is why there are less traffic fatalities." However, think about the outcome of a drivers ed program: more skilled drivers.

(E) strengthens because it shows HOW these drivers might have become more skilled. It also tells us that this change happened 5 years ago, precisely the point in time in which traffic fatalities started decreasing.

I need help understanding your explanation of why D is incorrect - the way I read it, hospital fatalities ≠ traffic fatalities. For instance, Australia could have had a huge drug epidemic leading to overdoses - this is completely unrelated to traffic fatalities, and therefore the incidence of hospital fatalities by itself would not weaken (or strengthen, or do anything) to the notion that fewer traffic fatalities = more skillful drivers

explanation would be appreciated, thank you.

EDIT: Please disregards, looks like I read "facilities" as "fatalities"

[Wenjin]

This question threw me off mainly because of the answer choices are not strictly designed.

A) why a 3-year-ago law would have impact on annual decline of fatality for 5 years?
B) why a major road repair that just started 5 years ago would have impact for annual fatality decline for 5 years? Wow! If that is the case, they are really efficient in finish that road repair!

I totally understand how E is correct but just found it is a bit stretch to rule out A and B.