A man who survived a recent train wreck in which several lives were lo

In the interest of helping the community, I would like to share my thoughts on this relatively straightforward CR question. As I like to do, I start with the question first so that I know exactly what to look for when I head into the passage:

We already know from the question stem that there is going to be a flaw in reasoning presented in the passage. We just need to find it. Giddy-up!

Sentence 1 provides background information, but it says nothing about any reasoning. We can look back at it if necessary, but we should probably move on.

Sentence 2, in the first part of the quote, provides a premise for a conclusion: the man has read about the likelihood of a train wreck, with a number attached.

Sentence 2, in the second part of the quote, presents a clear-cut conclusion, even starting with the word so. The conclusion is that, because he was just involved in a train wreck, he reckons that trains will have to log another 95,000 or so trips before another wreck will occur.

Since the premise and conclusion fit so well together, we can anticipate that the correct answer will likely incorporate the man's use of statistics to give himself a false sense of security.

There is no one ticking a box every time a train leaves a station. The statistics must be made and adjusted, in this case, after train wrecks have occurred. Such statistics cannot predict or forecast anything about when the next train wreck will occur. It could be the next day, two years from the day of this wreck, or at some other point, just about any other time. We have also touched on the exact premise given and the conclusion that the man arrives at through such a premise, so this is our answer.

There is no such assumption made in the passage. Yes, this particular wreck seems to have been grisly, with several lives... lost, but the premise in the quote mentions nothing about the types of wrecks that occur, other than that they involve trains. In general, it is a good idea to be skeptical of all-encompassing words such as all, never, always, only, and so on.

Talk about putting words into someone's mouth! It is not as if the man is named Kanye West, and our task is not to read into what he has stated any more than we need to. Besides, if the man could prevent train wrecks through his behavior, then why would he need to start fearing for [his] safety at all in the future, regarding his riding trains? Toss this answer into the scrap heap.

Although this could be true about the immediate future, it would have no impact on the logic that at some point, once trains had logged another 95,000 trips or so, there could be another train wreck. The flaw in reasoning is not a failure to recognize a delayed timetable, but to base a predictive argument purely on after-the-fact statistics.

The man makes no such assumption. In fact, his fear is predicated on knowing when train wrecks are likely to occur, about one in every 100,000 times a train leaves a station. He figures that since he has just been involved in a train wreck, another 95,000 or so train trips will have to occur before another wreck will occur, and his fear will rise accordingly around that time. Again, the premise of the passage and the conclusion based on it are airtight, and this answer choice just veers off in the wrong direction.

I hope that helps. If anyone has any questions, I would be happy to help explain anything further.

- Andrew