Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for [#permalink]
14 Feb 2006, 13:39
This post was BOOKMARKED
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 13 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
I got this from the LSAT website.
Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often
higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim
that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If
this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because
(A) accepts without question that insurance
companies have the right to charge higher
premiums for higher-risk clients
(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to
repair as cars of other colors
(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive
recklessly have a preference for red cars
(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red
cars are involved in accidents
(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every
automobile accident results in some loss of life
Conclusion: Life will be saved by banning red cars.
What is the reasoning that will weaken the above conclusion.
(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars --> By banning red cars, we wont be keeping the reckless drivers off the road. Hence life is still at stake every after banning red cars.
(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life --> every automobile accident doesnot lead to loss. But every accident involving red car MAY lead to death. This reasoning is not strong enough to weaken the above conclusion.
Re: Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for [#permalink]
17 Aug 2016, 06:24
This is the explanation from Manhattan by noah. Hope this clears
The core of this conclusion is:
red cars are in greater % of accidents --> lives saved by banning red cars
Read like a debater. Why might it be that lives would NOT be saved by banning the red cars? As you stated, perhaps those drivers will simply go and drive recklessly in their blue cars. That's the flaw in this argument, as (C) notes.
(A) is out of scope. Premiums is not part of the core.
(B) is out of scope. Cost?
(D) is too picky! Why does the argument need a specific percentage? It's enough to say that it's greater.
(E) is untrue. The argument does not assume that every car accident results in someone dieing. Perhaps there's an assumption that at least some accidents result in death, but not ALL.
You need to stand your ground with flaw answer choices and ask "Did the argument really do that?"
Re: Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for
17 Aug 2016, 06:24