WeakenDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: After the speed limit was lowered, there were fewer bad car crashes, so the new limit must be the reason for the safety improvement.

Conclusion: The reduction in the speed limit was the cause of the decrease in serious traffic accidents.

Reasoning: Serious accidents dropped by 35 percent during the same five-year period that followed the lowering of the speed limit.

Analysis: This argument falls into the classic trap of assuming that because two things happened at the same time, one caused the other. To weaken this, we need to find an alternative explanation for why accidents decreased between 1986 and 1990. Perhaps car manufacturers introduced airbags during those years, or a new highway was built that diverted dangerous traffic away from Park Road. Look for an answer that introduces a 'third variable' that could account for the improved safety record.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

14.

Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?

Correct Answer
C
C identifies a clear alternative explanation: if far fewer vehicles used Park Road over time, serious accidents could decline because exposure declined, not because the speed limit changed.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep