medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
An insurance analyst argues that every driver who has been involved in more than three accidents in a year is a reckless driver. The analyst justifies high premiums for these individuals based on this classification.
Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the analyst's argument?
- Some plainly reckless drivers avoided any accident at all last year despite frequently speeding and routinely ignoring posted stop signs.
- A professional test driver had four accidents last year, all caused by mechanical failures in the test vehicles he was evaluating.
- Statistics consistently show that drivers under the age of 25 are generally far more accident-prone than substantially older drivers.
- High premiums are a reliably effective way to nudge ordinary people toward driving more carefully and faithfully obeying traffic laws.
- Anyone who has ever once been in even a single very minor fender-bender is plainly the most dangerous person now alive on earth.
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