LSAT Question Explanation
PT 123, Section 2, Question 21
Identify the FlawArgument structure
Buying a minivan will make the driver less susceptible to a car accident.
Minivans are correlated with fewer accidents.
Explanation
The conclusion is relying on the results from the driver's research: that minivans are correlated with lower accident rates. But that doesn't mean the driver will be safe behind the wheel of a minivan... she said herself that she's a reckless driver!
Minivans don't necessarily cause lower accident rates, the correlation may be more likely due to the people who own and drive different types of cars. An example could be that a mother with young children is more likely to own a minivan than a sports car, and more likely to drive safely than a sports car owner.
Answer choices
Minivans are correlated with lower accident rates, that doesn't mean that they cause lower accident rates.
The driver says that she has done some research, but we have no reason to believe that her research relied on too small of a sample size.
The driver doesn't conclude that she certainly won't have an accident, just that her odds of having one will be lowered.
We're not concerned with conditional logic here. The stimulus is about probability, not sufficient and necessary conditions.
Similarly to answer choice (B) this tries to trick students by getting them to look at where the driver says she did research and making them think "oh, maybe the research was conducted poorly." But we have no reason to believe that the driver used a poorly informed source.