#14 - In jurisdictions where use of headlights is optional when

[Christmaspuppy]

Hi!

I am not sure whether my explanation for answer C is correct or not. I think the reason for choosing answer C is:
there's less collision when headlights on at all times is because those drivers are more careful.
And I am also confusing why answer E is wrong.

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may have that rationale backwards, Christmaspuppy. Answer C, if true, means that the folks who voluntarily put on their headlights all the time are doing so BECAUSE they are careful, rather than that they are careful because they have their lights on. It may not be having their lights on that keeps them from being involved in collisions, but their careful driving is the real cause. If that's so, then forcing the careless drivers to put their lights on might have no impact, because they are still not careful.

Answer E made me pause a second, so I see your confusion there. What it's saying is that there is poor visibility in the places that require the use of headlights, and that might explain why those places have more accidents than places with better visibility. But where that answer fails is that it doesn't explain why requiring the use of headlights at all times does nothing to REDUCE the number of collisions IN THOSE PLACES.

Let's imagine a place that is always foggy, and the roads are curvy and mountainous so you can't often see far down the road in front of you even when it's clear. This is not a safe place to drive! You would expect such a place to have more accidents than a place that is sunny and has straight roads on flat plains where you can see for miles and miles in both directions. But why wouldn't making people turn on their headlights reduce the number of collisions there? If I see lights coming through the fog ahead, or lighting up the canyon walls around me as I approach a curve, wouldn't that help me avoid at least some collisions? The data says that's not helping at all, and that's the paradox that answer E never addresses.

[Christmaspuppy]

I think you may have that rationale backwards, Christmaspuppy. Answer C, if true, means that the folks who voluntarily put on their headlights all the time are doing so BECAUSE they are careful, rather than that they are careful because they have their lights on. It may not be having their lights on that keeps them from being involved in collisions, but their careful driving is the real cause. If that's so, then forcing the careless drivers to put their lights on might have no impact, because they are still not careful.

Answer E made me pause a second, so I see your confusion there. What it's saying is that there is poor visibility in the places that require the use of headlights, and that might explain why those places have more accidents than places with better visibility. But where that answer fails is that it doesn't explain why requiring the use of headlights at all times does nothing to REDUCE the number of collisions IN THOSE PLACES.

Let's imagine a place that is always foggy, and the roads are curvy and mountainous so you can't often see far down the road in front of you even when it's clear. This is not a safe place to drive! You would expect such a place to have more accidents than a place that is sunny and has straight roads on flat plains where you can see for miles and miles in both directions. But why wouldn't making people turn on their headlights reduce the number of collisions there? If I see lights coming through the fog ahead, or lighting up the canyon walls around me as I approach a curve, wouldn't that help me avoid at least some collisions? The data says that's not helping at all, and that's the paradox that answer E never addresses.

Thank you Adam Tyson!

How you broke down the answer and the argument is very helpful. I am thinking about it in another way. I am not sure it's ok to be figured like this. Answer E is talking about places where using headlights all the time is mandatory. But the argument (at least one aspect of the discrepancy ) is talking about places where using headlights when there's good visibility is optional. So it seems like impossible for answer E to deal with this aspect of the discrepancy.

Looking forward to your reply.

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Christmas,

I wouldn't necessarily say that it's impossible for an answer choice to resolve the paradox if it looks at places where using headlights all times is mandatory, but it's a more difficult ask, and I really can't think of an example that would do that job. Even if there's a problem with the mandatory jurisdictions which would explain why headlights are never going to reduce collisions, it still wouldn't explain why we can't make the headlight-optional jurisdictions even safer by imposing a mandate.

Hope that helps!
Beth