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, 14:39
0% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
HideShow timer Statictics
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.