Discussion
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
*This question is included in Practice Set: "Stronger" Questions, Set 2, question #1
| (A) | Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 02/04/2013 16:03
Please explain why the correct answer is B.
Posted: 02/27/2013 19:46
P Adams, being the star student that you are, since you are the person who pointed out an error in one of LSAT's Logic Games problems, we expect more from you in your line of questioning than the lazy "Please explain why it is B." :)
Would you mind in the future writing down your line of thinking, so that we can point out the errors or the right points? We want to help our users, but we need to use our resources efficiently to keep prices affordable. Answering every single question from scratch will not make this business sustainable, and you will lose the ability to practice LSAT or other tests using this great app.
Now, to your question. We are given that in the past 8 years, the number of serious auto-accidents rose by 20%, but the number of children-under-4 who are killed in accidents rose only by 10%.
Choice A would help explain the decrease of death rate among children ABOVE 5, but NOT those under 4.
Choice C actually would explain an INCREASE of the number of children involved in accidents, since kids are now more prone to accidents given that they take more car trips.
Choice D would neither strengthen nor weaken the argument. Even if the sharpest adoption rate of car seats is for above-2 age group, that does not change the fact given to us that car seat usage for the 0-4 age group has doubled in the past 8 years.
Choice E would neither weaken nor strengthen, since it is giving us IRRELEVANT data about a group (adults) not being discussed.
We are left with choice B, which makes sense, because if the percentage of children involved in serious auto accidents has remained constant, the death rate would have increased by 20% too. So something must have helped the growth rate of under-4 deaths lower than the growth rate of accidents. The passage argues that something is the doubling of car seat use among children under 4.
Hope this helps and please rate / review us well in the App Store.
Would you mind in the future writing down your line of thinking, so that we can point out the errors or the right points? We want to help our users, but we need to use our resources efficiently to keep prices affordable. Answering every single question from scratch will not make this business sustainable, and you will lose the ability to practice LSAT or other tests using this great app.
Now, to your question. We are given that in the past 8 years, the number of serious auto-accidents rose by 20%, but the number of children-under-4 who are killed in accidents rose only by 10%.
Choice A would help explain the decrease of death rate among children ABOVE 5, but NOT those under 4.
Choice C actually would explain an INCREASE of the number of children involved in accidents, since kids are now more prone to accidents given that they take more car trips.
Choice D would neither strengthen nor weaken the argument. Even if the sharpest adoption rate of car seats is for above-2 age group, that does not change the fact given to us that car seat usage for the 0-4 age group has doubled in the past 8 years.
Choice E would neither weaken nor strengthen, since it is giving us IRRELEVANT data about a group (adults) not being discussed.
We are left with choice B, which makes sense, because if the percentage of children involved in serious auto accidents has remained constant, the death rate would have increased by 20% too. So something must have helped the growth rate of under-4 deaths lower than the growth rate of accidents. The passage argues that something is the doubling of car seat use among children under 4.
Hope this helps and please rate / review us well in the App Store.