Q19 - Studies have shown that

[tirzamullin]

I didn't like any of these answers. Why is A right?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This question gives me a strong sense of deja vu. Thanks for bringing this one to the forums!

The reasoning structure in this argument is actually quite common. We're given the existence of some phenomenon and then the argument offers an explanation for how (or why) it happened.

Phenomenon: More people are killed while crossing streets in crosswalks than are killed crossing streets outside of crosswalks.

Explanation: Crosswalks give pedestrians an overly strong sense of security and so they are not as careful crossing streets in crosswalks compared to outside of crosswalks.

Okay, well that argument isn't terrible and the explanation offered seems somewhat reasonable. However, it isn't the only possible explanation, and another explanation worthy of consideration comes to mind--what if more people cross at crosswalks than cross outside of crosswalks. That could also explain why more people are killed crossing in crosswalks than outside of them. (In fact, another LSAT question played on that very same explanation PT39, S2, Q5.)

Answer choice (A) provides this alternative explanation and so undermines the argument.

INCORRECT ANSWERS
(B) brings up something concerning, but doesn't tell us where the increased number of fatalities are occurring (in crosswalks or outside them), nor does it offer any hints as to why this is occurring--leaving the argument's explanation as a contending reason for why these fatalities are occurring.
(C) strengthens the argument that pedestrians have an overly strong sense of security crossing in crosswalks.
(D) strengthens the argument by eliminating a competing explanation for the higher fatality rate within crosswalks. If drivers were paying less attention at crosswalks (maybe they're distracted by so many things to be aware of at one time) that could explain the greater number of fatalities, but since drivers are paying attention at crosswalks, this alternative explanation is ruled out.
(E) strengthens the argument by suggesting that pedestrians are possibly made less cautious by the crosswalk, which is a measure promoting the safety of pedestrians.

[sharpj]

In (D) does the "or near" aspect kill this as a potential answer? I eliminated it because the conclusion is specifically about pedestrians IN the crosswalk, not near it. If it read: "generally most alert to peds in crosswalks" would that weaken the argument? Or is this still a weak answer because it requires you to assume that being aware of pedestrians means you will not hit them? I feel like this is a pretty fair assumption to make, but I also feel like no assumption is safe on the LSAT unless they're asking you to make it.

[bjxccgc]

In (D) does the "or near" aspect kill this as a potential answer? I eliminated it because the conclusion is specifically about pedestrians IN the crosswalk, not near it. If it read: "generally most alert to peds in crosswalks" would that weaken the argument? Or is this still a weak answer because it requires you to assume that being aware of pedestrians means you will not hit them? I feel like this is a pretty fair assumption to make, but I also feel like no assumption is safe on the LSAT unless they're asking you to make it.

Actually if you assume being aware of pedestrians means you will not hit them, it will strengthen even MORE. Please allow me to express my personal thoughts on this one. I think the reason that you think D is a weakener, (just like me when I am doing the PT) is that when you read "Drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks", you immediately feel that, "Oh wait, that totally feels CONTRIDICATED with the study result that pedestrians are more often struck by cars when crossing streets in crosswalks, thus its weakens". You will think if drivers are more careful, why crosswalks pedestrians get struck more often? Yes, exactly! Whoever argues with you will say "Because they have overly strong sense of security and less like to look both ways". Did you see the interesting point? D feels contradicted with the statics, the premise. But what is the arguments? The argument is given the statics A. I concluded B. When D "weakens" the premise static A, it strengthens my argument. Think this way, when you read D, you must question yourself "Under the circumstance D provided, why crosswalkers get struck more often, ah, because of the conclusion......." D strengthens by ruling out a possible alternatives.

Think about this argument:

Hillary: "most of my classmates wear red today, they must love red"
Trump: "Well, they are not required to wear red"
Hillary: "Yes exactly, then why most of them wear red?"
Trump: "Hmm......"

Does Trump weaken Hillary's point? No, It strengthens it.

One thing obscures me a little is that when we say something happens "more often", are we saying, in this argument, that more crosswalkers are struck by cars, or people who use crosswalk actually have a higher possibility of getting struck. If the premise become the "Studies have shown that the PERCENTAGE of pedestrians who struck by cars are higher than the PERCENTAGE who are stuck when crossing outside of crosswalks", will this render answer choice A irrelevant?

[andrewgong01]

I got this question right through process of elimination but a part of this question that made me unsure (and hence I had to do POE) was what "often" means.

Is often an absolute number ( as Answer Choice A seems to suggest is the correct interpretation ) or is it a relative/% measure that controls for the total sample size that is engagig in the act. Does often have anything to do with likelihood of occurrence that is more of a measure of probablity than actual absolute number?

In other words, on the LSAT, does "often" mean absolute number or is it more of a statistical measure that controls for things (like in the same way a % measure controls for total population size).

[YihanX379]

I got this question right through process of elimination but a part of this question that made me unsure (and hence I had to do POE) was what "often" means.

Is often an absolute number ( as Answer Choice A seems to suggest is the correct interpretation ) or is it a relative/% measure that controls for the total sample size that is engagig in the act. Does often have anything to do with likelihood of occurrence that is more of a measure of probablity than actual absolute number?

In other words, on the LSAT, does "often" mean absolute number or is it more of a statistical measure that controls for things (like in the same way a % measure controls for total population size).

I have the same question. Can anybody help?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting question, andrewgong01 and YihanX379 -

"More often" does refer to an actual number rather than a percentage within a base group. I think it's possible that the confusion here could stem from the fact that "more often" is a measure of frequency, but it's a measure of frequency over time rather than frequency within a group.

If I say "I will start going to the gym more often", I mean the my actual number of visits to the gym per week will increase. So, when this argument says that pedestrians doing X are struck more often than pedestrians doing Y, that means that there are more instances of X-strikes per week than there are Y-strikes per week.

If the author had intended to indicate probability, they could have said that pedestrians are more likely to be struck when doing X than they are when doing Y. That statement would have controlled for the sizes of the two groups in question.

[WesleyC316]

I got this question right, but answer choice C really gave me a hard time.

Isn't C pointing out an alternative explanation, saying that pedestrians have an overly strong sense of security that the traffic signals will work, rather than the sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals? Am I overthinking?

[JosephK477]

I got this question right, but answer choice C really gave me a hard time.

Isn't C pointing out an alternative explanation, saying that pedestrians have an overly strong sense of security that the traffic signals will work, rather than the sense of security that oncoming cars will follow the signals? Am I overthinking?

You're correct. I narrowed it down to A and C for this reason, and ended up choosing C. Answer C would undermine the claim that the reason people are getting hit is because the CROSSWALK is giving them a sense of security that cars will follow the rules. What if the real reason is that their trust in crosswalk SIGNALS that unexpectedly malfunction is what's giving them the sense of security that leads to them getting hit? The LSAT creators are tricky though and the stimulus does say "which MOST undermines the explanation". While C does explain it, A could be a more likely explanation.

[Laura Damone]

Agreed, Joeseph K. C is a weakener, but barely. It's not powerful enough to be a correct answer on a regular Weaken question, though it may be just enough of a weakener to be an incorrect answer on a Weaken Except question.