easy · 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 markedly more precise at coding and recording head-injury cases throughout that same year.
- Bicycle helmets are engineered chiefly to protect against low-speed impacts rather than high-speed collisions.
- A new municipal subsidy sharply lowered the retail price of helmets for the city's commuting cyclists.
- Helmets prevent a far higher share of cycling head injuries than any other piece of protective equipment.
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