Critical Reasoning

Highways 24 and 105 each have relatively equal traffic loads, meaning their daily vehicle counts are virtually equal. According to records maintained by the State Department of Transportation, Highway 24 had fewer vehicle accidents last year than did Highway 105. Therefore, driving on Highway 24 is safer than driving on Highway 105.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) Highway 105 runs through lowlands notorious for poor visibility due to heavy fog, while Highway 24 does not.

(B) More than twice as many highway patrol officers are assigned to Highway 105 than to Highway 24.

(C) The emergency rooms of the hospital located along Highway 105 report considerably more injuries than do those of the hospital near Highway 24.

(D) Highway 24 had more fatal accidents than Highway 105 last year.

(E) Highway 105 was built with traditional asphalt, while Highway 24 was built with a newer, more inexpensive asphalt substitute.

OA is A

However, my doubt is in C
C says, The emergency rooms of hospital located along the highway 105 report considerable more injuries than do those of hospital near highway 24.

For example, in highway 105 the emergency rooms report 4 injuries per accident, and in highway 24 the emergency rooms report 1 injury per accident. Now, suppose the 4 injuries that emergency rooms report in highway 105 were minor injuries, but injury reported in highway 24 was major or lethal that can lead to a death, then in that case we can't say highway 24 was safer for driving. Therefore, weakening the conclusion.


Please let me know if my line of reasoning is correct.

vinni.k wrote:Highways 24 and 105 each have relatively equal traffic loads, meaning their daily vehicle counts are virtually equal. According to records maintained by the State Department of Transportation, Highway 24 had fewer vehicle accidents last year than did Highway 105. Therefore, driving on Highway 24 is safer than driving on Highway 105.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the conclusion above?

(A) Highway 105 runs through lowlands notorious for poor visibility due to heavy fog, while Highway 24 does not.

(B) More than twice as many highway patrol officers are assigned to Highway 105 than to Highway 24.

(C) The emergency rooms of the hospital located along Highway 105 report considerably more injuries than do those of the hospital near Highway 24.

(D) Highway 24 had more fatal accidents than Highway 105 last year.

(E) Highway 105 was built with traditional asphalt, while Highway 24 was built with a newer, more inexpensive asphalt substitute.

OA is A

However, my doubt is in C
C says, The emergency rooms of hospital located along the highway 105 report considerable more injuries than do those of hospital near highway 24.

For example, in highway 105 the emergency rooms report 4 injuries per accident, and in highway 24 the emergency rooms report 1 injury per accident. Now, suppose the 4 injuries that emergency rooms report in highway 105 were minor injuries, but injury reported in highway 24 was major or lethal that can lead to a death, then in that case we can't say highway 24 was safer for driving. Therefore, weakening the conclusion.


Please let me know if my line of reasoning is correct.

Well, you're right that it's problematic that C doesn't offer any information about the severity of the injuries, but a bigger issue is that C tells us nothing about whether the majority of the injuries are even due to car accidents. If the ER near highway 105 is full of people suffering from gunshot wounds, that wouldn't tell us anything about the relative safety of the driving conditions.

Thank you David. Yes, you are right C doesn't tell how the injuries have occurred. It could be gunshots or car accidents or anything else. It's not clear.

Thanks