kimnamil14
Thanks Received: 2
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 12
Joined: September 07th, 2010
 
 
 

Q5 - We are taught that pedestrians

by kimnamil14 Sat Sep 11, 2010 9:30 pm

I was debating between A and B on this seemingly straightforward question. Initially A popped out as the answer, but the more I look at B, the more it sounds ok. Is B incorrect because of "some"? If B were to say, "people jaywalk only when there is little traffic," would that be an ok answer?

And another question- this question type is different from "explain the apparent discrepancy" type, am I right? In other words, we are asked to only explain why more pedestrians might die crossing at corners than while jaywalking, NOT to explain why our expectation that crossing at corners is safer than jaywalking doesn't match the statistics?

Thank you!
User avatar
 
bbirdwell
Thanks Received: 864
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 803
Joined: April 16th, 2009
 
 
 

Re: Q5 - We are taught that pedestrians

by bbirdwell Mon Sep 13, 2010 6:08 pm

I would count this as a distinct question-type. Exactly the same technique is employed, it's just that the word "discrepancy" doesn't appear in the question.

So, the question is this:
If we are taught that jaywalking is dangerous, and drivers anticipate people crossing corners more than they anticipate people crossing elsewhere, then WHY do more pedestrians die crossing corners?

(A) plainly answers the question, as you pointed out.

Regarding (B), I don't think it would be any better without the word "some." It only tells about the traffic, rather than the number of people. If jaywalking is more dangerous, then even with little traffic, we'd expect more people to die.
I host free online workshop/Q&A sessions called Zen and the Art of LSAT. You can find upcoming dates here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q5 - We are taught that pedestrians

by WaltGrace1983 Sat Apr 12, 2014 4:28 pm

I've got a few questions about this stimulus. Let me break down my thought process. Can someone comment on it?

Drivers anticipate people crossing at corners more than jaywalking
(→)
We might infer that crossing at a corner is safer than jaywalking
→
Statistics show that more pedestrians die crossing at corners than while jaywalking

This is kind of a weird argument because it doesn't really follow typical structure. The conclusion does not really follow from the premises but actually runs contradictory to the premises, like an "explain the discrepancy" question.

My first thought when reading this argument is that, just because there are more deaths crossing at the corner, does not mean that it is safer. I know that's not really the point of the question - we don't really care if its safer or not - we are just trying to explain the statistical claim. However, this definitely seems relevant because if there are 1000 people that cross at the corner and 5 die while 2 people cross at the corner and 1 dies, this would imply that crossing at the corner is much safer! This is a classic proportion vs. raw number argument.

(A) seems to give a very simplistic answer but it nonetheless "explains the statistical claim" very well! This is exactly what I expected. If FAR MORE pedestrians cross at the corners than it would make sense that MORE pedestrians die at the corners.

(B) Is this wrong because we know nothing about the amount of time when there is "little traffic?" What if there is "little traffic" nearly all the time? What if there is hardly ever "little traffic?" This just leaves many unanswered questions! In addition, we know from this that (jaywalk → little traffic). So even if there was "little traffic" that doesn't mean that people are jaywalking! Either way, this is just a very open-ended answer that is vague and largely inconsequential. What do you think?

(C) and (D) just seem to give us more inconsequential information. So what if they are unfamiliar? Do people even follow the laws? We don't know! What does the right of way have to do with this? Do people follow the "right of way" law?

(E) This seemed really attractive because it brought in the element of "anticipation," something discussed in the stimulus. However, this not only doesn't seem to explain why MORE pedestrians die (after all, they are being anticipated the same amount) and we don't even know what proportion of drivers are good. What if there are only 2 good drivers in a pool of 1,000,000 drivers?

Are these sufficient reasons to eliminate wrong answers? Are my thought processes good? Thanks.
 
christine.defenbaugh
Thanks Received: 585
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 536
Joined: May 17th, 2013
 
This post thanked 2 times.
 
 

Re: Q5 - We are taught that pedestrians

by christine.defenbaugh Thu Apr 24, 2014 2:55 pm

Some really great work here, WaltGrace1983!

First, I think you're absolutely correct to treat this as an "explain the discrepancy" question. In fact, I wouldn't bother with trying to ascertain any sort of 'conclusion' at all here, for exactly that reason. The sentence "me might infer...." is a little funky, because it backs off from actually making that inference directly.

So, exactly as you lay out, on the one side we have:
1)drivers anticipate pedestrians more at corners than elsewhere
1a) maaaaaybe that means crossing at a corner is "safer"

and then on the other side of the weirdness coin:
2) MORE pedestrians die at corners

If we just take that possible inference at face value, a potential solution leaps into view: raw numbers vs. proportions, exactly as you point out!

(B) is tempting primarily because it hints at undermining that inference that crossing at a corner is actually safer, proportionally. The problem is that it's so soft and vague, it doesn't actually do the job.

If it said something like: ALL people jaywalk only when there is ZERO traffic. Well, okay then - maybe that would explain it. The drivers of the world are more likely to hit you jaywalking, BUT if people only ever jaywalk when there are no drivers anywhere around, then you've effectively eliminated that source of increased risk.

But (B) doesn't come anywhere near to being that helpful. It's only about 'some' jaywalkers, and it's only about 'little traffic'. Is that diminution of traffic enough to explain this? Meh? Are those 'some' jaywalkers enough to balance this out? Meh? It's all vague and rather unlikely.

Your reasoning for eliminating the remaining answers is golden!

(C) and (D) are all about the law - who cares?! What do people actually DO?!

And (E) just gives us information about GOOD drivers - presumably all the other drivers still have that anticipation problem that increases the risks for jaywalkers.

Keep up the great work!