LSAT Explanation PT 37, S2, Q17: A safety report indicates that, on

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city's public safety records? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Paradox question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is E. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage. A safety report states that traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in areas with strict seat belt laws. However, in a certain city with seat belt laws in effect for two years, the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same. This presents a discrepancy between the safety report and the city's public safety records. Our goal is to identify which answer choice does NOT help resolve this discrepancy.

Think of it like this: imagine a city where people usually don't wear helmets while cycling. A new law requires everyone to wear helmets, and we expect the number of head injuries to decrease. However, the number of head injuries remains the same. We need to find out why this might be happening.

Now, let's discuss the question type and the answer choices. This is a Paradox question, which asks us to identify the answer choice that does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy.

a) Two years ago, speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).

This answer choice helps explain the discrepancy because it suggests that the increased speed limits might have offset the potential decline in traffic fatalities due to the seat belt laws. In other words, seat belts might have made drivers safer, but the higher speed limits could have increased the risk of fatal accidents, keeping the number of traffic deaths the same.

b) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.

This answer choice also helps resolve the discrepancy. If pedestrian fatalities are now included in the total, it is possible that the number of traffic deaths involving drivers and passengers has indeed decreased, but the inclusion of pedestrian fatalities has kept the overall number the same.

c) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.

This answer choice implies that the increased traffic could have contributed to the stable number of traffic deaths, despite the seat belt laws. More traffic could mean more accidents, potentially offsetting the decline in fatalities due to seat belt usage.

d) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them.

This answer choice suggests that the discrepancy exists because the seat belt laws have not been effectively enforced. If few drivers are actually wearing seat belts, then we wouldn't expect to see a significant decline in traffic fatalities.

e) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

This answer choice does NOT help resolve the discrepancy, making it the correct answer. It only tells us that most of the people who died were not wearing seat belts, but it doesn't explain why the number of traffic deaths hasn't decreased. It also doesn't give us any information about the overall compliance with the seat belt laws or any other factors that might have influenced the number of traffic fatalities.

In conclusion, answer choice E is the correct answer because it does not help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city's public safety records.