PrepTest 50, Section 3, Question 22
Columnist: Several recent studies show, and insurance statistics confirm, that more pedestrians are killed every year in North American cities when crossing with the light than when crossing against it. Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.
Columnist: Several recent studies show, and insurance statistics confirm, that more pedestrians are killed every year in North American cities when crossing with the light than when crossing against it. Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.
Columnist: Several recent studies show, and insurance statistics confirm, that more pedestrians are killed every year in North American cities when crossing with the light than when crossing against it. Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.
Columnist: Several recent studies show, and insurance statistics confirm, that more pedestrians are killed every year in North American cities when crossing with the light than when crossing against it. Crossing against the light in North American cities is therefore less dangerous than crossing with the light.
The columnist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
relies on sources that are likely to be biased in their reporting
presumes, without providing justification, that because two things are correlated there must be a causal relationship between them
does not adequately consider the possibility that a correlation between two events may be explained by a common cause
ignores the possibility that the effects of the types of actions considered might be quite different in environments other than the ones studied
ignores possible differences in the frequency of the two actions whose risk is being assessed
0 Comments