LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 1, Question 22
Parallel FlawArgument structure
The law requiring bike helmets should not be supported.
5x more pedestrians die in auto accidents than people die in bike accidents yearly, and drunk driving accidents cause even more harm. But there are no bans on pedestrians or alcohol.
Explanation
This is a horrible argument. We shouldn't refuse to try to fix a problem just because society has other problems.
Also, the author overlooks that banning walking down the street and alcohol sales are drastic, complicated measures. Obviously we can't and shouldn't ban pedestrians, and while alcohol does have downsides, banning alcohol sales would be drastic and controversial. It wouldn't even necessarily address the real cause of drunk driving deaths which is people actually getting behind the wheel after drinking.
So the lack of these measures isn't convincing evidence that we shouldn't enforce something as simple as wearing a bike helmet.
Answer choices
This doesn't seem like a great argument because I'm thinking there could be other negative effects of cigarette smoking that could harm the test pilots in the short term. However, it doesn't mirror the stimulus where we said we shouldn't ban something because we haven't banned some other things that are unrelated.
This is the same flaw. Just because there are some other problems in society doesn't mean we should refuse to try to prevent the harm of eye damage. Also, banning eating and socializing are ridiculous measures, whereas requiring goggles in labs with dangerous substances is much more simple and feasible.
The analogy here seems flawed to me because basic vs complex math isn't a good analogy to learning separate languages. You do need foundational math before calculus, but young children can learn two separate languages at the same time, they don't need to master one first.
However, this isn't the same problem as the stimulus where we refused to implement a safety measure because we haven't banned things related to other problems in society.
This seems like a good argument to me, assuming this person has done the math correctly on which option would be cheaper.
This seems like a reasonable argument. It would probably be more efficient to test the people who are at risk of Lyme disease than to test everyone.
Note that the strategy in the evidence may not be the best strategy, because it leaves room for error. But the conclusion is only about efficiency.