hard · LSAT Logical Reasoning
In a study, residents of towns that adopted a curfew saw a sharp drop in nighttime traffic accidents, while comparable towns without a curfew saw no such drop. Researchers concluded the curfews caused the decline. But the curfew towns had also, in the same period, installed brighter streetlights, whereas the comparison towns had not.
The objection to the researchers' conclusion proceeds by doing which one of the following?
- Pointing out that the comparison towns may not have been genuinely comparable to the curfew towns in any relevant respect.
- Identifying a factor present in the curfew towns but absent in the comparison towns that could independently account for the observed difference.
- Arguing that the decline in accidents was too sharp to have been produced by a change in policy as modest as a curfew.
- Suggesting that the researchers measured accidents over too short a period to establish a lasting causal relationship.
- Demonstrating that brighter streetlights, rather than curfews, are known to be the most effective means of reducing nighttime accidents.
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 these statements?
- 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?