Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and

Hi, Choices A,B & C can be omitted easily since they are out of scope with respect to current argument.
IMO, there is no evidence or facts presented by the writer against the evidence provided for low fatalities in low speed limit areas. Therefore, option E, IMO is the best choice.
I am sure I am missing something if OA to this question is D!!!
Can experts of the forum provide some insight on this????

PowerScore Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

This stimulus introduces a letter to the editor complaining of the reasoning in a recent article on
speed limits. In that article, it was noted that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle fatality
rates. But the letter writer concludes that it will not be that way for long, based on the fact that
vehicle-related fatalities are increasing in areas with lower speed limits.

The question stem asks why the reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed. Whenever we
see simple numbers comparisons, we should be wary of the author’s tendency to draw unwarranted
conclusions. The problem here is that a simple increase in the number of vehicle related fatalities
does not provide sufficient evidence to logically draw any conclusions about whether these fatalities
are attributable to the lower speed limits. If we are seeking to determine whether or not safety is
increased by lower speed limits, a more relevant comparison would be between the respective
fatalities of high vs. low speed limit areas.

Answer choice (A): Reliance upon empirical evidence cited in the original article is not a fl aw in
the letter writer’s argument—it is quite common on the LSAT to see two different viewpoints or
interpretations based on the exact same evidence. The author of the letter is not refuting the evidence
provided by the original report, but rather the interpretation of that evidence, so this answer choice is
incorrect.

Answer choice (B): The term “often” is extremely vague, and provides no insight into the relative
likelihood of fatalities at high speeds vs. low speeds. The reason the conclusion in the stimulus
is fl awed is that it rests on a shaky premise, not that it fails to consider all outside evidence. This
answer choice does not provide an effective attack on the stimulus’ reasoning.

Answer choice (C): The fact that some drivers don’t want to drive any faster plays no role in the
editorialist’s argument, since an increased speed limit would not require anyone to drive faster. The
fact that some don’t wish to drive faster is irrelevant, and certainly does not represent a fl aw in the
author’s reasoning, so this answer choice should be eliminated.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If vehicle fatality rates are increasing
everywhere, not just in the low speed limit areas, then we cannot logically draw any justifiable
conclusions about the increase in fatality rates that has taken place in the low speed limit areas, and
raising the speed limit based on these figures would not necessarily be advisable.

Answer choice (E): The letter writer does provide some evidence (though questionable) against the
opposing viewpoint—the evidence that the vehicle fatality rate is increasing in the low speed limit
areas. This evidence may be weak, but the claim is presented, so this answer choice is inaccurate and
incorrect.

Thank you very much Akela & VeritasKarishma for the clear explanations!

A,C,E eliminated straight - not relevant
B- there may be other reasons than speed limit which are causing fatalities in vehicle related accidents.
E- correct- there may be common reasons for rising fatalities rates in other areas also.

Posted from my mobile device

KarishmaB Ma'am,

How did you come to the below?
Can you throw some light?

Note this: The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits.

The author says that lower fatality rates for lower speed limits will not be true for long. He says that they are rising. So he expects that fatality rates of lower speed limit areas will overtake those of higher speed limit areas (or at least equal).

If A is less than B and you see B rising and say that A will not stay less than B for long, what does it mean? It means that you expect A to overtake B soon.

KarishmaB ma'am,
I still didn't get the reference.
The author says that the fatality rates in areas with lower speed limits is rising. But that does not mean that it will equal the fatality rates of areas with higher speed limits. They could rise but still stay short or not even reach equal. How do we assume that they would cross?