According to the passage, the LRCWA's report recommended that contingency-fee agreements
Griffinon December 6, 2021
Example #9
I am confused on how being less likely to use a seatbelt does not strengthen the idea that teenagers lack basic driving skills. Because someone does not use a seatbelt, that would weaken a claim that someone lacks basic driving skills?
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Hi Griffin! I can see how answer choice B might strengthen the argument if we make the assumption that wearing a seatbelt is a basic driving skill, as a lot of people may assume in the real world. However, we have to be cognizant of the fact that on the LSAT, we should not carry these outside assumptions into the exam and take what they tell us at face value. Because they have not established that wearing a seatbelt is equivalent to having basic driving skills in the stimulus here, answer choice B actually weakens the original argument by providing an alternative cause for why teenagers cause more traffic fatalities overall. It is because teenagers are less likely to buckle up leading to more severe injuries in an accident that they are more prone to traffic fatalities rather than lacking basic physical navigational/operational skills such as not knowing how to brake properly, neglecting to use the turn signals when changing lanes, etc. Hope this helps!
