LSAT Explanation PT 20, S1, Q10: Premiums for automobile accident insurance are

LSAT Question Stem

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Flaw, which means we need to identify the flaw in the reasoning of the argument.

Let's first summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. The passage states that premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars, and insurance companies justify this by claiming that a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents. The author then concludes that lives could be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether. The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise: Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red cars.

Premise: Insurance companies claim that a greater percentage of red cars are involved in accidents.

Conclusion: Lives could be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The argument is flawed because it assumes a causal relationship between the color of the car and the likelihood of it being involved in an accident. However, the passage only presents a correlation between red cars and accidents, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Is there a causal relationship between the color of a car and the likelihood of it being involved in an accident?"

Now let's discuss each answer choice:

a) This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not focus on whether insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher-risk clients. The focus is on the relationship between red cars and accidents.

b) This answer choice is also incorrect as it does not address the flaw in the argument. The cost of repairing red cars compared to other cars is not relevant to the conclusion that lives could be saved by banning red cars.

c) This is the correct answer choice. The argument ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars. If this were true, then banning red cars would not necessarily save lives, as these reckless drivers would simply choose cars of other colors.

d) This answer choice is incorrect because the exact percentage of red cars involved in accidents is not necessary for the argument. The passage only needs to establish that there is a higher percentage of red cars involved in accidents compared to other colors.

e) This answer choice is incorrect as it misrepresents the argument. The argument does not assume that every automobile accident results in a loss of life. The flaw in the argument lies in the assumption of a causal relationship between the color of a car and the likelihood of it being involved in an accident.