Thanks for the question! Take a careful look at the stimulus. We’re given a causal connection between the advanced technology of ski boots and bindings, a decrease in injury rate from 9/1000 to 3/1000, and an increase in other ski-related injuries from 10% to 25%. We are not given any causal information with regards to alcohol consumed, only correlative evidence. We can’t actually properly infer (which, recall on the LSAT, means that it must logically follow given statements in the stimulus) that more people have been drinking alcohol between 1950 and 1980, because there could simply be less overall injuries as a result from fewer people being injured due to the advanced technology of ski bindings and boots. Thus, we cannot properly infer (B), and so we eliminate it.
(D) is also wrong because we know that ski-related injuries includes “all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort” as well as those occurring on the slopes. Therefore, it is completely possible that even as less people are injured on the slopes, more people are injured off the slopes for whatever reason. It’s not a matter of logical certainty that incidence of ski-related injuries will overall decline, and so we must rule out (D) as an answer to this question. In addition, it’s possible that the technology has reached its max, and won’t be able to decrease the incidence of ski-related injuries any more. We can’t make any predictions about the future from the information we have in the passage in this case.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.
mprezzyApril 2, 2020
@shunhe I cannot see your response.
shunheApril 2, 2020
Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully it works this time!
Hi @mprezzy,
Thanks for the question! Take a careful look at the stimulus. We’re given a causal connection between the advanced technology of ski boots and bindings, a decrease in injury rate from 9/1000 to 3/1000, and an increase in other ski-related injuries from 10% to 25%. We are not given any causal information with regards to alcohol consumed, only correlative evidence. We can’t actually properly infer (which, recall on the LSAT, means that it must logically follow given statements in the stimulus) that more people have been drinking alcohol between 1950 and 1980, because there could simply be less overall injuries as a result from fewer people being injured due to the advanced technology of ski bindings and boots. Thus, we cannot properly infer (B), and so we eliminate it.
(D) is also wrong because we know that ski-related injuries includes “all injuries occurring on the premises of a ski resort” as well as those occurring on the slopes. Therefore, it is completely possible that even as less people are injured on the slopes, more people are injured off the slopes for whatever reason. It’s not a matter of logical certainty that incidence of ski-related injuries will overall decline, and so we must rule out (D) as an answer to this question. In addition, it’s possible that the technology has reached its max, and won’t be able to decrease the incidence of ski-related injuries any more. We can’t make any predictions about the future from the information we have in the passage in this case.
Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any further questions that you might have.
mprezzyApril 3, 2020
Thank you, and thank you for responding twice. I can now see your response. I was not using the current version of the program. Thank you again.
shunheApril 14, 2020
Glad I could help!
IleriDecember 30, 2021
Hi, I just wanted to confirm because the explanations on the discussion are a bit confusing in regards to the relationship between alcohol and the other ski related injuries.
If alcohol increases with other ski related injuries, does that mean it causes the other ski related injuries OR it's just a correlation and we can't say for sure ? So alcohol increase --> increase in other ski related injuries would not be right ? I took it as a correlation and not a cause, and that was how I was able to eliminate B and choose E, but I wanted to be sure it makes sense.
jakennedyJanuary 17, 2022
Hi @Ileri,
This is really more of a market share question.
Imagine there were 10,000 skiers in 1950. At the rate of 9 injuries / 1000 skiers, we would have 90 injuries on the slope.
Since 10% of the injuries were off the slope, that means that we had 10 injuries off the slope.
1950 injuries: on slope : 90 (90%), off slope; 10 (10%)
Now let’s imagine that in 1980 we had exactly the same number of skiers.
10,000 skiers at the new rate of 3 injuries / 1000 skiers would give us 30 injuries.
The stimulus said that the new percentage of injuries that were off the slope was 25%. That would mean that there were again, exactly 10 injuries off of the slope!
1980 injuries: on slope: 30 (75%), off slope: 10 (25%)
So the key is that the rate of off-slope injuries did not actually change at all! Rather, its share of the total population increased because the rate of injury on the slopes decreased.
