Q8 - On the basis of incontestable

[kimyooji]

Could someone explain why B is incorrect?

thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The expected result is that the laws mandating use of car seats proven to improve safety should cause a decrease in number of serious injuries --

The unexpected result is that a large number continue to be in serious accidents.

Here, as is generally the case, it's easier to get to the right answer by eliminating wrong ones --

(A) doesn't explain the unexpected result, because the result happens when the car seats are being used.

(C), for the same reason, doesn't explain anything, because the result is specifically about when the seats are used, and (C) only impacts whether people will have them or not.

(D) does not explain the unexpected result, because the unexpected result has to do with injuries the seat was specifically designed to help avoid.

That leaves (B) and (E) --

(B) is super-tempting, but does not, in and of itself, help explain the unexpected result in the same way that (E) can. Even if the child is on the road more (which would of course increase # of opportunities for injury) -- it doesn't explain why the seat doesn't markedly help prevent injuries it is meant to.

(E) address the unexpected just a bit more specifically.

[goriano]

The expected result is that the laws mandating use of car seats proven to improve safety should cause a decrease in number of serious injuries --

The unexpected result is that a large number continue to be in serious accidents.

Here, as is generally the case, it's easier to get to the right answer by eliminating wrong ones --

(A) doesn't explain the unexpected result, because the result happens when the car seats are being used.

(C), for the same reason, doesn't explain anything, because the result is specifically about when the seats are used, and (C) only impacts whether people will have them or not.

(D) does not explain the unexpected result, because the unexpected result has to do with injuries the seat was specifically designed to help avoid.

That leaves (B) and (E) --

(B) is super-tempting, but does not, in and of itself, help explain the unexpected result in the same way that (E) can. Even if the child is on the road more (which would of course increase # of opportunities for injury) -- it doesn't explain why the seat doesn't markedly help prevent injuries it is meant to.

(E) address the unexpected just a bit more specifically.

I'm still having a hard time choosing (E) over (B). I was certain that (B) was correct because it got at the percentages vs. numbers flaw that is so often tested on the LSAT. That even though the percentage of risk might be lowered, there are just more children out there in cars and thereby increasing opportunities for injury.

(E) says that "many" parents fail to use them properly, and although "many" could be equivalent to "large number" in the stimulus, I thought it was just a stretch. I also didn't see how it was "unexpected" - if you're not using seat belts properly of course you're going to be more at risk for the injuries that the seat belts were designed to prevent!

Help?

[ohthatpatrick]

I also didn't see how [E] was "unexpected" - if you're not using seat belts properly of course you're going to be more at risk for the injuries that the seat belts were designed to prevent!

I felt like you got yourself a little confused here. The correct answer isn't supposed to be "unexpected" -- it's supposed to resolve the unexpected -- it's supposed to make us feel like the original 'discrepancy' was totally reasonable.

So your sentiment that "of course you're going to be more at risk" is exactly why this is our answer.

In terms of (B), I sympathize with your % vs. # instinct.

Here's what you were thinking they gave us:
Car seats are supposed to reduce the likelihood of injury
YET
The number of car seat injuries has gone up

(B) The number of kids riding in car seats has gone up even more than the number of car seat injuries.

====
However, that's not what was actually said in Q8.

The stimulus is concerned with the number of children being injured remaining high, even though we expected the number of injuries to be greatly reduced. (So those are both about the #, not the likelihood or %)

(B) is saying that the likelihood (%) of children riding in a car has gone up. We have no idea whether the # of children riding in a car has gone up or down from that fact about likelihood (because we don't know whether the # of children has gone up or down between these two time frames).

An easier way to make (B) less appealing is to point out that saying "children are more likely to make automobile trips" is not the same as "children are more likely to make automobile trips while riding in a safety seat". Since we're only concerned with what's happening to children who are in safety seats but still getting injured, this answer is too vague for us to know what it's good for.

I hope that helps.

[james.h.meyers]

So I want to see if I have this all understood.

I can see why E makes sense, but when timed I picked B. E seemed too out of scope (at the time), where B seemed to hit the #s vs % issue that goriano mentioned.

BUT I think B can be seen as wrong because the UNEXPECTED result is that the exact injury something (the seat) is supposed to prevent is still being sustained. Numbers don't matter. If 1 child sustained the exact injury that some item, S, was supposed to prevent while S was being used, we would say it's an unexpected result.

E is the only one that addresses the issue of the seat, being used, with a child, etc etc... but they're still getting the same injuries.

My question would be how I could classify this answer or classify B as an incorrect answer - is it "irrelevant to the conclusion"?