- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Mon Apr 14, 2025 6:09 pm
#112598
Hi lawschoolgirl,
There are a few problems with Answer D. First, notice the word "generally" in the answer. Even if "drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks" (my emphasis), that does not mean that there could still be many drivers who are not most alert at the time. In addition, even if drivers are most alert to pedestrians in or near crosswalks, it is still possible that pedestrians' overly strong sense of security increases their likelihood of being struck (such as if they are less likely to look both ways before stepping onto the street).
The stimulus provides a causal explanation for the fact that pedestrians are struck more often in crosswalks than outside of them. The best way to weaken such a causal argument is to provide an alternate cause, as Answer A does. Answer D does not provide an alternate cause. In fact, Answer D makes the results of the study more surprising by eliminating another possible alternate cause (which would be if drivers became less alert at crosswalks). In other words, if drivers being most alert for pedestrians at crosswalks means that the pedestrians are justified in feeling secure, then why are there more pedestrians struck at crosswalks? Answer D doesn't provide an explanation for this fact that is not in dispute.
In addition to being causal, this stimulus (and the correct answer) is really testing the concept of numbers and percentages (which often overlaps with causal reasoning). Because the studies are citing raw numbers of pedestrians struck when they should be using percentages (since risk, danger, etc. are percentage ideas), that is the real flaw/weakness here that Answer A addresses.
There are a few problems with Answer D. First, notice the word "generally" in the answer. Even if "drivers are generally most alert to pedestrians who are in or near crosswalks" (my emphasis), that does not mean that there could still be many drivers who are not most alert at the time. In addition, even if drivers are most alert to pedestrians in or near crosswalks, it is still possible that pedestrians' overly strong sense of security increases their likelihood of being struck (such as if they are less likely to look both ways before stepping onto the street).
The stimulus provides a causal explanation for the fact that pedestrians are struck more often in crosswalks than outside of them. The best way to weaken such a causal argument is to provide an alternate cause, as Answer A does. Answer D does not provide an alternate cause. In fact, Answer D makes the results of the study more surprising by eliminating another possible alternate cause (which would be if drivers became less alert at crosswalks). In other words, if drivers being most alert for pedestrians at crosswalks means that the pedestrians are justified in feeling secure, then why are there more pedestrians struck at crosswalks? Answer D doesn't provide an explanation for this fact that is not in dispute.
In addition to being causal, this stimulus (and the correct answer) is really testing the concept of numbers and percentages (which often overlaps with causal reasoning). Because the studies are citing raw numbers of pedestrians struck when they should be using percentages (since risk, danger, etc. are percentage ideas), that is the real flaw/weakness here that Answer A addresses.