medium · 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 new traffic lights were even more effective than the official first believed
- shows that the new traffic lights are what caused drivers to abandon the roads
- establishes that traffic volume and accident counts have no relationship to one another
- proves conclusively that the new traffic lights had absolutely no effect on safety
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- 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
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?