Car seats greatly reduce the injuries, and the laws have been passed mandating their use. But a large number of children using the seats continue to receive serious injuries.
How can we explain it?
We can right away eliminate (A), (C) and (D) because these answer choices are inconsistent with the conclusion. The statistic we are interested in are children using the car seats (eliminates (A) & (C)) receiving injuries car seats were designed to avoid - eliminates (D)
(B) is incorrect because it implies that more children receive serious injuries because more children ride in cars and are more likely to get into an accident than before the introduction of car seats, but that is not what the argument is saying. The argument never claims that MORE children are receiving serious injuries, merely that the statistic has not changed. A large number of children received serious injuries before the introduction of car seats and a large number of children using car seats continue to receive the same injuries even though the seats were designed to avoid them. Even assuming that (B) is true, it still fails to explain the finding because the injuries are of a kind that the car seats were designed to avoid not just any injuries.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any other questions.
hannahnaylor5August 28, 2019
We have been told that on the LSAT, many = some = at least 1, so (E) is saying at least one parent did not protect their child using the care seat because they were using it improperly. How does that resolve the paradox if it is only, for example, 2 parents who aren't properly using the carseat?
RaviAugust 29, 2019
@hannahnaylor5,
Great question. Let's take a look at (E).
(E) says, "The protection afforded by child safety seats depends on their being used properly, which many parents fail to do."
"Many" means at least one and up to and including all, so it's also possible that many is a much larger number than two. It's vague, but the fact is that if (E) is true, then it definitely explains the unexpected findings in the report. If parents don't use the seats properly, then this would explain why their kids are getting hurt despite the car seats' good design.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
