medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
A city mandated that all bicycle riders wear helmets to reduce the severity of head injuries. While the severity of injuries per accident decreased, the total number of bicycle-related accidents reported to hospitals increased.
Which one of the following, if true, most helps to resolve the discrepancy?
- Years before the helmet law, the city had already finished modernizing how it tracks and records all hospital admissions.
- Confident that helmets protected them, riders took to the road more often and rode more aggressively than they had before the law.
- Bicycle riding is widely regarded by physicians as an excellent form of low-impact cardiovascular exercise for adults of any age.
- Helmets now come in a wide assortment of bright colors and sleek modern styles designed expressly to appeal to younger riders.
- Helmets are so protective that simply wearing one effectively eliminates any chance whatsoever of a serious cycling injury.
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