Q26 - Editorialsit: Additional restrictions should

[ksemenya87]

For some reason I am just not getting this question. I can eliminate answer choices A, C, and E. However, I am stuck with answer choices B and D.

I don't really understand as to why B is incorrect. If teenagers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others, then wouldn't that add some support to the argument, rather than weaken it? Thus making it the right answer. But d is the right answer.

So, why is d the right answer and b not?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Great question!

This one is definitely useful to help guide the way you think about strengthening and weakening questions.

The argument consists of

An observed phenomenon: teenagers make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, and yet they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.

Explanation: teenagers lack basic driving skills.

Notice that the conclusion is just one possible explanation for why teenagers account for such a high percentage of traffic fatalities. Each of the incorrect answer choices provides an alternative explanation and thus weakens the argument.

(A) suggests that it's not teenagers who are poor drivers but rather the quality of the cars that teenagers own that is responsible for their higher traffic fatality rate.
(B) suggests that it's not that teenagers are poor drivers but just that teenagers don't wear seat belts and that's why they make up a higher percentage of traffic fatalities.
(C) offers the alternative explanation that teenagers make up a higher percentage of traffic fatalities because their on the road more than other drivers.
(D) strengthens the conclusion by saying that teenagers cause more dangerous accidents. That would suggest that they lack basic driving skills.
(E) suggests the alternative explanation that because teenagers have more passengers, that when they are involved in accidents they are likely to make up a higher percentage of fatalities.

Does that help clear this one up? If not, let me know and I'd be happy to keep working on this one with you.

[anjelica.grace]

I broke down the stimulus as such:

Conclusion - Additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers.
Evidence - Teenagers lack basic driving skills.

But according to your breakdown, which makes sense to me after the fact:

Conclusion - Additional restricted should be placed on drivers licenses of teenagers BECAUSE teenagers lack basic driving skills.

How does one differentiate between "because" triggering a premise or "because" being part of the conclusion as a proposed explanation?

Having interpreted it my way initially, all the answer choices seemed to support the conclusion, but if I had interpreted it as you described, (D) would have been immediately apparent to me as the correct choice.

Please help, so I avoid this mistake again!

(I made the same mistake in #8 with the viceroy butterfly stimulus)

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Really good question Anjelica!

Keep an eye out, particularly on Strengthen/Weaken questions, for arguments that present "observed phenomena." Notice the second sentence is some statistical findings. Often when you see that presented, the conclusion is an explanation for how or why it happened. Usually you don't have to contend with "because" in the explanation itself, but sometimes it does. Typically, one might even confuse an explanation for a causal argument and could see the words "because of" in the explanation. Explanations are indeed causal argument's but instead of them containing correlations in the evidence, we simply see "observed phenomena."

Not sure if any of that helps, there's no hard a fast rule to follow, but experience will guide you that conclusions that seek to explain how or why something occurred may have words that sound like reasons or even evidential claims.

Hope that helps!

[jgallorealestate]

Conclusion: Additional restrictions should be placed on driver's licenses of teenagers

Premise/Sub-Conclusion: ...teenagers lack basic driving skills.

Premise: they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.

The reason we have a sub-conclusion is because the last sentence supports the claim that teenagers lack basic driving skills.

Not imperative to know, but helpful in breaking down the argument to understand the structure.

[alexg89]

I thought using a seatbelt was a basic driving skill, I just googled this too and it is pretty much a consensus that it is (found multiple sources agreeing). In fact I'm pretty sure you get tested on it before you can get your license; therefore I think LSAC should have done a better job with this question.

In fact I could even go further and say that answer B would be the reason for D occurring. If the accidents are more severe because they don't wear seatbelts and if I go along with the test makers and assume this is not a basic driving skill then this question is just not logically sound.

[nflamel69]

same reason why I ultimately chose B instead. So how would we know that using seatbelt is more of a safety procedure rather than a driving skill? I only came up with the categorization after doing this question. :/

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

When people talk about driving skills, they talk about one's ability to focus on the road, see and react to potential obstacles, understand approximate stopping distances, etc. These skills are about the actual act of driving. I can see why in today's day and age, using a seatbelt makes sense, but I don't see that as a driving skill. Instead seatbelts, turn signals, antilock brakes, airbags, etc are safety mechanisms that are supposed to work independent of the driver's skill.

I guess the short answer is that on the LSAT such things are not skills belonging to the driver, but features of the vehicle. You'll have plenty more opportunities to remember that and utilize it on LR questions.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think an important point to note here is that the conclusion stems solely from the idea of disproportionate statistics: 7% of registered drivers should not equate to 14% of traffic fatalities.

It seems that 7% of registered drivers should equate to ~7% of traffic fatalities.

I think the author is assuming that accidents will happen and people will die. It is just that these statistics are so disproportionate that he concludes that teenagers just don't have good driving skills.

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

(A) When teenagers get into accidents, their cars don't hold up as well. That is why more people die, not because of raw driving skills.

(B) When teenagers get into accidents, the passengers and driver aren't as likely to wear seatbelts. That is why more people die, not because of raw driving skills.

(C) The statistics aren't proportional because the driving times aren't proportional. That is why more people die, not because of raw driving skills.

(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others. This seems to strengthen the conclusion.

(E) When teenagers get into accidents, more passengers are at risk. That is why more people die, not because of raw driving skills.

These answers follow a very common pattern. They show why the premise of the disproportionate statistics don't necessarily lead to the conclusion that teenagers lack driving skills.