LSAT Explanation PT 42, S4, Q24: Provinces and states with stringent car
LSAT Question Stem
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts' belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?
Logical Reasoning Question Type
This is a Paradox question.
Correct Answer
The correct answer to this question is C.
LSAT Question Complete Explanation
The question type for this problem is a Paradox question. The paradox in the passage is that provinces and states with more stringent car safety requirements have higher average rates of accidents per kilometer driven, despite most highway safety experts agreeing that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.
To help understand this paradox, let's use a simple example. Imagine two towns: Town A has strict safety requirements for cars, while Town B does not. Surprisingly, Town A has more accidents per kilometer driven than Town B. However, experts still believe that the strict safety requirements in Town A help reduce accidents. Our task is to find an explanation that reconciles these seemingly contradictory facts.
Now, let's analyze each answer choice:
a) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
- This answer doesn't explain the paradox because it only focuses on one aspect of safety inspections. It doesn't address why accident rates are higher in provinces with stringent safety requirements.
b) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
- This answer could explain why accident rates are higher in provinces with stringent safety requirements. However, it contradicts the experts' belief that more stringent requirements reduce accident rates. Therefore, it doesn't resolve the paradox.
c) The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states.
- This is the correct answer choice. It explains the paradox by introducing a new factor: road congestion. If the roads are more congested and dangerous in provinces with stringent safety requirements, then the higher accident rates could be attributed to this factor. At the same time, the stringent requirements could still be reducing accident rates compared to what they would be without those requirements.
d) Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving.
- This answer supports the experts' belief that stringent safety requirements reduce accident rates but doesn't explain why these provinces have higher accident rates. Thus, it doesn't resolve the paradox.
e) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
- This answer might seem attractive initially, but it's irrelevant because the passage specifically talks about "accidents per kilometer driven." Since the accident rate is calculated per kilometer driven, the total number of kilometers of roads doesn't explain the paradox.
In conclusion, the correct answer choice is (c), as it provides an explanation that reconciles the safety experts' belief with the apparently contrary evidence described in the passage.