medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city enacted a law requiring all bicyclists to wear helmets in order to reduce head injuries. Surprisingly, the total number of bicycle-related head injuries reported by hospitals rose in the year following the law's passage.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to explain the increase in reported head injuries?
- The number of residents who took up cycling jumped by roughly half during the same year the law took effect.
- Hospital staff became more precise at coding and recording head-injury cases that year.
- Bicycle helmets are engineered chiefly to protect against low-speed impacts.
- A new municipal subsidy lowered the retail price of helmets.
- Helmets prevent a far higher share of head injuries than any other piece of cycling equipment.
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?