WeakenDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: The author argues that red-light cameras are a failure for safety because, even though they stop some crashes, they cause so many more rear-end accidents that the total crash count goes up.

Conclusion: Traffic cameras at intersections do not actually improve traffic safety.

Reasoning: While side-impact collisions decrease at intersections with cameras, the total number of accidents increases because rear-impact collisions rise significantly.

Analysis: The author's logic rests on a 'numbers game,' assuming that more accidents automatically equals less safety. To weaken this, we should challenge the assumption that all accidents are equal. If the side-impact collisions that were prevented were life-threatening, while the new rear-end collisions are merely minor 'fender benders,' then the cameras actually *did* increase safety. Look for an answer that highlights the difference in severity between the types of accidents mentioned.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

9.

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

Correct Answer
D
If side-impact collisions are a much greater safety threat than rear-impact collisions, then reducing side-impacts could improve overall safety even if rear-impacts rise, undermining the conclusion that cameras do not increase safety.
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