easy · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city official claims that the city's newly installed traffic lights have reduced accidents by 15%. It is later discovered that the total number of cars on the road also fell by 15% over the very same period.
The discovery about traffic volume most undermines the official's claim because it:
- supplies an alternative explanation for the decline, since fewer cars on the road would tend to produce fewer accidents regardless of the lights
- demonstrates that the city's new traffic lights were in fact even more effective at preventing accidents than the official had first believed
- shows that the installation of the new traffic lights is precisely what caused so many drivers to abandon the city's roads altogether
- establishes that traffic volume and the total number of accidents recorded bear no relationship whatsoever to one another in any city at all
- proves conclusively and beyond any possible doubt that the city's new traffic lights had absolutely no measurable effect on driver safety at all
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these statements?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from these premises?
- Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the authors' conclusion?
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ