/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

>>13579933

D

>>13580114

What's your reasoning?

>>13580445

>seatbelts work

>discredit the rate being the same

Neither of these things are in the question. It's about seat belts being worn, not seat belts working. "Credit the rate being the same" would make more sense, but I find the word choice odd, "explain the rate being the same" seems more like a rephrasing of what the question says. I don't understand the relevance of your pic.

>>13580584

>I got a bug that makes me post a picture whenever I post or it errors

Then you shouldn't have posted a picture that could be mistaken for having relevance.

>all the people who died did not wear seatbelts

no, not all, MOST

>the false inference is that seatbelts did not work

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no such inference in the text.

>so it explains why they rate did not go down

All options except one explain why the rate did not go down, your task is to pick that one.

>however its the survivor ship bias or rather its mirror image as in the pattern, a fatality bias meaning that the seatbelts work it is all the information value we get from E

>meaning that the seatbelts work

What? So you're saying the survivorship bias in E) is telling us that the seat belts work? How? You write very sloppily. It's hard to decipher what you're trying to say. The correct answer is E. Is it survivorship bias? Probably, it is talking about the wrong group. But E also doesn't say anything about before vs after.

>>13579933

>(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).

this is giving us info about before vs after, speed limits 15 kph higher after vs before

>(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.

this is giving us info about before vs after, after: includes pedestrian fatalities, before: did not

>(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.

this is giving us info about before vs after, more automobile traffic after vs before seems to be how we're supposed to interpret that, simplified, or something similar

>(D) Because the city’s seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them.

this is giving us info about before vs after, before: no law, after: law, but rarely enforced

>(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

this is the only option which says nothing about before vs after, it only says something about after

>>13580846

great argument

(N) The city is populated with brown people

>>13579933

(D) Is the obvious answer. If the laws are not being regularly enforced how can the rate of compliance be verified? Plus it says 'strict laws' in the question, not 'diligent enforcement' or 'widespread compliance'.

The correct answer is that seat belt laws are a form of government overreach and revenue farming masquerading as concern for public safety.

>>13580938

(E) Is more of a toss up since it outright mentions deaths related to no seatbelts, which could have a separate cause such as being a University town or something connected to more reckless behavior and could explain the discrepancy.

>>13580882

Don't be so easily offended fren. I wasn't trying to insult. I just think you could put a little more care and effort into your posts for clarity. I'm genuinely interested in reading your reasoning.

>>13580938

I don't see how a) enforcement would necessarily be the same as statistics gathering, b) how verification is relevant to the question. You have a number of premises in the question, you just have to run with them being true, and there is nothing which suggests verification of the rate of compliance is an issue. Furthermore this is a hypothetical universe, I don't think things like that matter, whatever they tell you is true in this hypothetical universe is true, which is the same thing as what I said about the premises. It's telling you that few drivers in the city have complied with the laws. I'm not sure what you're saying, on the one hand you're talking about incapability to verify, on the other hand you seem to perhaps be saying that it's D because D is a contradiction, that it's not a reasonable option. This is misunderstanding what the question is about. It says IF TRUE. Your task is not to find an option which is unreasonable or untrue or whatever, they're all to be taken as true.

Secondly if you read the text carefully it doesn't say the laws are strict in the city, only in those areas which are in the safety report. There is no indication that the city is part of those areas. Regarding the city all it says is seat belt laws have been in effect for two years.

>The correct answer is that seat belt laws are a form of government overreach and revenue farming masquerading as concern for public safety.

This is beyond the scope of the question, which is hypothetical in nature.

>>13580961

I'm really not following your reasoning here. I don't see what you mean how it could explain the discrepancy. E) doesn't say anything about before vs after. More reckless behavior? Compared to other cities? Let's run with this hypothesis. How would the death rate remaining the same rather than going down after seat belt laws are passed be explained by this? It could mean perhaps more accidents than in other cities, even more serious accidents than in other cities, even more deaths than in other cities, yet how would it explain that passing a seat belt law, and presumably having more people wear seat belts, did not make deaths go down comparing before and after in the same city? Also how would the fact that most people who were killed did not wear seat belts be an indication of more reckless behavior? Even if more reckless behavior means more drivers don't wear a seat belt compared to other cities, how would this a) be indicated by the fact most of those who died did not wear a seat belt, and b) even if it was indicated, how would it explain the discrepancy. Again I'm not following at all, and I think your reasoning is wrong.

you don't know how to respond in an intellectual way that you are like this, bitter bile-filled stinking ignoble pieces of shit, and that's because you don't know logic.

Goddamn I'm fucking tired of /pol/tards. I hate you all. You're dumb as fuck. You never have intellectual discussions. You don't care about logic. You have retarded opinions. You are godless degenerate trash. You suck. Kys

Pt. 1

>>13581636

I actually like discussions like this because they are exercises, I will do my best to explain and in no way am I trying to be snarky or insulting in case it seems that way, which it shouldn't. I'm the rare polite /pol/ user even though I'm TND/TKD/TJD etc. I reason my way to conclusions.

>I don't see how a) enforcement would necessarily be the same as statistics gathering

That's how statistics are gathered. How would you know the rate of compliance without enforcement? Consider crime stats. They're based on convictions. The only way they would know compliance is if they have comparative non-compliance, which would only be known via conviction and thus enforcement. The data must come from somewhere.

>b) how verification is relevant to the question. You have a number of premises in the question, you just have to run with them being true, and there is nothing which suggests verification of the rate of compliance is an issue.

It was more of an aside but I explained it above. This is a logic question and it was poorly formulated/worded. I accepted it as true as that was stated, try re-reading what I initially wrote as a whole and not in pieces.

>Furthermore this is a hypothetical universe, I don't think things like that matter, whatever they tell you is true in this hypothetical universe is true, which is the same thing as what I said about the premises.

Sure but when asking logical questions the assumption is that it is occurring in the same context as the world we actually live in so those conditions still apply. I responded with that in mind.

>It's telling you that few drivers in the city have complied with the laws. I'm not sure what you're saying, on the one hand you're talking about incapability to verify, on the other hand you seem to perhaps be saying that it's D because D is a contradiction, that it's not a reasonable option.

The question mentioned strict laws in other cities. Nowhere did it mention enforcement or compliance. This point is about enforcement and by extension compliance verification. You cannot have an accurate figure on compliance without enforcement. Consider that law obeying people obey the law, regardless of enforcement, whether out of duty/morality or simply not wanting to have to worry about having their life interrupted. A strict law is enough to deter these people even with ZERO enforcement because it is unnecessary worry. It's a tautology though ignoring my explanation of psychology, law abiding people follow the law. Reckless and criminal people by contrast do not as an inverse to the above. It's a relatively small group which ride the line and flirt with both sides whose behavior is influenced by the rate of enforcement. They are (usually flawed) calculators, in the Navy we called them "Sea Lawyers", they also make up part of the "Sovereign Citizens" movement aside from the retarded niggers. A select few are genuinely intelligent, usually bipolar (not bpd) and fun as fuck to hang around because they usually can skirt the law, they're like that guy in Utah with the chemistry channel who would extract mercury and blow shit up until the feds illegally descended. They are statistically irrelevant though.

>This is misunderstanding what the question is about. It says IF TRUE. Your task is not to find an option which is unreasonable or untrue or whatever, they're all to be taken as true.

I did not misunderstand, perhaps I didn't order my response in a reader friendly way. I accepted the option as true and merely commented on its lack of being sound at first. Even if held as 'true' enforcement and compliance were never mentioned, only the existence of 'strict laws'. You must ASSUME that diligent enforcement and widespread compliance accompany a 'strict law'. The strictness of a law merely applies to those charged and/or convicted. Therefore true or not, this condition would not explain any discrepancies, especially considering the behaviors noted above about law abiding and reckless people.

>Secondly if you read the text carefully it doesn't say the laws are strict in the city, only in those areas which are in the safety report. There is no indication that the city is part of those areas. Regarding the city all it says is seat belt laws have been in effect for two years.

If you read carefully the question is about the discrepancy between the reports between the city with strict laws and the other, so it is in fact relevant

>>13581886

Odd, I gave a short and completely logical answer here >>13580938

I am explaining it to this anon here>>13581636

and Pt 1 is here >>13581895

Can you explain the difference between a sound argument and a valid one?

>>13581899

Why are people here so stupid, and know nothing about logic and argumentation? Most people here are total children. You can only handle people agreeing with you. Any modicum of disagreement and you throw a tantrum and tell them they're picrel. What's the point of posting if you are only looking for people to agree with you? You're leaving the thread exactly the same as you entered, and that's every thread, every day, never learning a thing. And that's how you want it. You don't want to learn about argumentation, you don't want to have arguments, you don't want to learn, you want to circlejerk all day long every day

>>13581917

I'm still finishing my response to the other anon but I cut it and pasted it in notepad so I could respond to you. I get what you're saying, and I imagine you're probably a few beers deep or maybe just at the end of your rope and sick of everything. Yes most people here are retards, but not everyone. Not everyone is an asshole, not everyone is trying to fuck you over or egotistically posture. I understand man, shit sucks and many times I simply run out of patience. Take heart though, I falter but I try to be a positive influence in this sea of shit. If you see it too, you can as well. I hope this doesn't get deleted for off-topic so please include something however small in your next reply. Keep your chin up man, you're not alone even though it seems that way.

>>13581940

just letting you know what OP really thinks

https://archive.4plebs.org/_/search/text/logic/country/SE/type/op/page/1/

>>13581942

Even if that's true, there are other anons here willing to have a good discussion regardless if OP is a fag or not. I gave a comprehensive answer in good spirit. Share your thoughts fren

Pt. 2

>>13581636

>I'm really not following your reasoning here. I don't see what you mean how it could explain the discrepancy.

I didn't say it could explain the discrepancy. I said its a toss up, or irrelevant/out of place.

>E) doesn't say anything about before vs after. More reckless behavior? Compared to other cities? Let's run with this hypothesis. How would the death rate remaining the same rather than going down after seat belt laws are passed be explained by this?

My point was that merely having most deaths associated with the lack of seatbelt use is only partially correlated. Again, no comparative metric from the previous city on compliance and enforcement and nothing mentioned here. There could be numerous causes, the variety in causes means it is ill defined in whether or not it is relevant to the disparity. Like I said, a toss up. (D) was obviously wrong, (E) is out of place and blurry so to speak, dependent on assumptions and interpretation.

> It could mean perhaps more accidents than in other cities, even more serious accidents than in other cities, even more deaths than in other cities, yet how would it explain that passing a seat belt law, and presumably having more people wear seat belts, did not make deaths go down comparing before and after in the same city?

That's my point, it is ill defined. You're asking me what it means and I am not the author, I do not know hence it went into the "ill defined" or toss up category.

>Also how would the fact that most people who were killed did not wear seat belts be an indication of more reckless behavior? Even if more reckless behavior means more drivers don't wear a seat belt compared to other cities, how would this a) be indicated by the fact most of those who died did not wear a seat belt, and b) even if it was indicated, how would it explain the discrepancy. Again I'm not following at all, and I think your reasoning is wrong.

Again, I chose my answers based on what DOESN'T explain the discrepancy, not what DOES, as per the question asking which DOES NOT, I think you got mixed up. I chose (D) and said (E) was a toss up (aka ill defined etc.). (E) might be a trick question/answer, as it neither supports nor contradicts the discrepancy. I merely highlighted that fact as an aside. I said it COULD be explained by more reckless behavior. The number of deaths associated with a lack of seatbelts likely has an external cause and correlation. Not everyone who refuses to wear a seatbelt wrecks, or even drives recklessly. But the types who drive recklessly are unlikely to wear a seatbelt. Factor in age and drinking/drug use patterns, and since we're comparing cities there is a big difference between Mayport Florida, Phoenix Arizona, Sandpoint Idaho, and Atlantic Beach North Carolina. Each of these cities have different populations with different behaviors, regardless of laws, and that affects who dies and in what ways. So yes, it matters.

>>13582014

Ah well fuck OP then, if he wants to fart huff let him. best way to do that is hijack his thread and talk about real shit. I'm game. He seems to be absentee, and I also gave a legit response so we're keeping his thread alive. No harm no foul yeah?

>>13582045

sounds fine by me

>>13582059

Speaking of logic, it is a tool made by man which is 99% useful but is too complex for most people to apply correctly even in those 99% of scenarios. They fall victim to sophistry and persuasion. Religion is also bunk as it hijacks people's reasoning and relies on metamagical thinking and superstition. Empiricism is only part of the story, as our experience and reality is only partially material. I believe there is a means of combining these things in a way that paves the way for a new weltanschauung.

Your thoughts?

>>13582059

If that's too abstract, perhaps we can discuss why most people suck. A logical analysis of psychology, which doesn't violate the thread topic.

>>13582059

Ultimately the problem is in the mind, A lot of these "great" modern thinkers have serious flaws in their theories or ideologies, whether intended or unintended, and operate in an abstract fabricated reality. They are typically linguistic thinkers and manipulate language, taking the words to be the thing itself and not something intended to representation a concept, believing that in doing so they can manipulate reality. To a degree they are correct insofar as they manipulate weak minded people to bring about certain social dynamics, but they are merely changing abstract representations and perceptions of reality, not reality itself. This compromises the understanding of language making it inefficient, imprecise, and conditional. This leads to communication errors, confusion, and eventually generalized insanity and chaos. It's important to get away from linguistic thought and toward reasoning with the concepts themselves, that is understanding the concept represented by the word instead of just trying to use words correctly in a statement. This is related to soft linguistic determinism, where language and working vocabularies influence a person's thinking and capacity for thought. This increases their potential exposure to new concepts and a means to organize their thoughts/communicate more effectively and precisely. Consider the subtle differences in certain words, even words which are considered synonymous, like "envy" and "jealousy". Having a robust language allows a people to build upon what came before instead of having to reinvent the wheel every generation. Language is extremely important, and it's also currently degenerating at a rapid pace. There is a reason the Bible was only printed in Latin for centuries.

Rejecting "Scientism" and monist materialism is also important. Same with religions which seek to limit your thinking. The word "God" has collected a lot of baggage, to the point it is difficult to have productive discussions about the Divine or anything greater than our physical reality. We connect with the Divine through our consciousness. Consider that perfection and time are mutually exclusive things, because time is merely our perception of change and entropy. Perfection cannot change or it ceases to be, therefore it is a timeless and constant state of things. The concept of a perfect cube, for example, does not exist in our physical reality, but it does in our minds as a concept and can be shared with others. It is timeless and never changes. Without time and change there could be no experience, so conscious being which have experiences MUST exist in time and therefore must be imperfect. The mind is the locus where the timeless realm of perfection and archetypes exist intersects with the conscious experience, or the imperfect realm within time. Consciousness cannot be proven to exist directly, it cannot be quantified or measured, only its effects can be through the will and thus the actions of the physical being itself. This is the same as the Natural Laws which determine the parameters and behavior of the physical reality we inhabit. We cannot measure, quantify, or understand the mechanisms by which they function, we can only observe their outward effects on matter and use its consistent persistent influence to make predictions. It's the counter-balance to entropy. Where entropy creates chaos in system and breaks them down, Natural Law creates order of ever increasing complexity in sustained systems, sometimes with the residual matter of greater complexity created by previous systems. That does not mean the drive to approximate perfection is futile, 99.9% perfection is better than .1% clearly. Approaching perfection and thus the Divine is asymptotic, like a convergent series, allows for the existence of consciousness and the pursuit of improvement perpetually, even if there are diminishing returns, however it also means that there is never a point when living and striving for improvement become futile. If "God" has any meaning at all, it is connected to consciousness and Natural Law, but also outside of physical reality. It is both within and yet separate. There is more to be said about this but we both agree there is a "God" so I don't need to get into my evidence that makes it more plausible for its existence than its non-existence.

>>13582249

Wrong, enforcement is never mentioned as a criteria, only "strict laws". Therefore an answer based on enforcement is incorrect as it has no correlation to the previous statistics. Deaths have a partial correlation, because deaths have an uncontrolled variable.

>>13582037

>I said it COULD be explained by more reckless behavior.

This is what I'm questioning. I think that it does not indicate anything of the kind.

>>13579933

Good to see the law student Swede is still around.

Also, A. Obviously, speed limit changes would rather enhance the isssue of the discrepancy.

>>13581895

>Nowhere did it mention enforcement or compliance.

It does in D).

>>13583595

These people are below cockroaches. They are like a virus….like cancer. Its hell to be surrounded by them. I can't stand being so superior to them. I hate them all.

>>13581895

D) says the city's seat belt laws have been rarely enforced and few drivers have complied with them. The question says IF TRUE. You say you accepted it as true, but you clearly didn't, rather you seem to be reading "if true" not as a prompt to accept it as true, which is what is meant by that, but as a question, for you to determine whether it's true or not, this is not what the question means by "if true".

>If you read carefully the question is about the discrepancy between the reports between the city with strict laws and the other, so it is in fact relevant

It says APPARENT discrepancy though. Furthermore you cannot accept D) as true without contradicting the information in the first part of the text, if we run with your idea that the text is implying that the seat belt laws are strict in the city, so from this we know that the text is in fact not implying this.

>>13582037

>I said it COULD be explained by more reckless behavior.

It only says most people who died in the city in the last two years did not wear a seat belt. It doesn't say that it's a larger percentage than those who did not wear a seat belt of those who died in another city.

>>13583104

Elaborate on your reasoning.

Seems like nobody cares about what the right answer to the question is.

>>13579933

>>13580445

D and E are pretty much the same

>>13582249

>Survivorship Bias occurs when we focus only on the "survivors" (those who lived) and ignore the "non-survivors" (those who died),

That's got nothing to do with anything because the question focuses on those who died. AI is dumb as fuck.

>>13584666

Higher speeds would make more accidents lethal, increasing the overall death counts. Unless,however, you have more people wear seat belts, then their contribution of minus 7% would become more noticeable, as the % reduction scales with the higher overall traffic deaths. You would practically have a bigger delta between accidents and deaths as you permit higher speeds with seatbelt laws.

Since that effect didn't happen, A doesn't help to resolve the issue.

>>13580772

>(D) Because the city’s seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them.

>this is giving us info about before vs after, before: no law, after: law, but rarely enforced

Wrong

>(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

>this is the only option which says nothing about before vs after, it only says something about after

If D says no law before, law now (it doesn't but the first part of the question does) then same can be said for E

>>13585166

It says the rate stayed the same.

>Introduce seat belts, deaths go down

>Introduce higher speed, deaths go up

Down + Up = Same

Get better

>>13585196

>It says the rate stayed the same.

That's the point, genius.

A tells us that there should have been a change, while the initial text explains that there was no change.

How would that help resolve the discrepancy?

>>13585275

>A tells us that there should have been a change

Only in the case if there was no seat belt law enforced, but there was.

>Seat belt laws have been enforced

>But the casualty rate stayed the same

>How do you explain that

>Well, they also raised speed limit

Explains it perfectly.

>>13585317

>Well, they also raised speed limit

That's assuming that the increased number of accidents would all be lethal, which, again, makes no sense with seatbelt laws.

It doesn't help your case.

What would be the fucking point of seatbelts (which you're arguing for), if the increase in deaths is linear if you increase the speed limit?

Unlike the inclusion of pedestrians (who don't wear seatbelts, obviously), you can't argue that the increase in more car-on-car-related deaths helps resolve the discrepancy. The discrepancy would need to become more obvious with more car-on-car-related accidents.

Also, if you need to add ideas like "maybe people aren't wearing the belts" to A, you're no longer judging A on it's own.

>>13585339

Idk if you're trolling or low logic skills so I'll give it one more go

>That's assuming that the increased number of accidents would all be lethal, which, again, makes no sense with seatbelt laws.

Not ALL, more accidents means more deaths even if only 1% of them is lethal.

Example 1: Last year there were 100 accidents, 10 were lethal. This year there was an increase of 100% (200 accidents) but only 11 were lethal. That's still more deaths and a 10% increase.

>Inb4 but what about the pecentages

Not an issue here.

>Also, if you need to add ideas like "maybe people aren't wearing the belts" to A

Strawman, non sequitur and so on.

It's simple

>How come casualty rate is the same if they enforced seat belts ?

>Because they raised the speed limit.

Example:

>In years before the seat belt law there were 50 deaths per year seat belt related and 50 deaths speed related.

>Now it's 40 deaths per year seat belt related, a decrease because of the seat belt law but 60 deaths per year because of the raised speed limit, making it 100 total, just like previous years.

>Example:

>>13585366

>Idk if you're trolling or low logic skills

Funny, coming from you.

>This year there was an increase of 100% (200 accidents) but only 11 were lethal.

Maybe try to remember that the initial claim is that the belts would lead to a 7% decrease. That's the discrepancy we're supposed to resolve.

If you're arguing that, due to the speed increase, the number of accidents increased to the point where you get more deaths despite the seatbelts, then you're already completely off the reservation for an increase in 15 kmh. Just like with your example, you can't just assume the number of accidents doubled to fabricate the circumstance where the lives saved and the increase in speed-related deaths cancel each other out.

A doesn't say anything about an increase in traffic or whatever else that would support something like a doubling in accidents.

It just says that the speed increases, which should translate in a reasonable increase in accidents, but not an exorbitant amount.

>>Now it's 40 deaths per year seat belt related, a decrease because of the seat belt law but 60 deaths per year because of the raised speed limit,

There's no such category as a speed-related death.. You're making shit up as if the seatbelt death reduction doesn't apply to all accidents.

If you have 100 deaths in the "beltless" year, then you're expect 93 deaths the next year, all things being equal.

If the speed increase doubles the deaths to 200 or whatever, then the seatbelt reduction would leave you with a whooping 186 deaths.

However,and once again, the text said they stayed the same…

To stay the same, the 7% improvement, requires that the speed increase killed exactly 7 more people in our 100/93 example, not once, but two years in a row. That's basically claiming the coin landed on the side after a toss. It's so improbable, it can't possibly serve as a resolution.

>>13579933

the real answer is that there is no discrepancy to explain because we don't know the margin of error, and a 7% reduction may not be statistically significant to draw any conclusions from the report. needs more stats.

>>13585435

>There's no such category as a speed-related death.. You're making shit up as if the seatbelt death reduction doesn't apply to all accidents.

I see, you're the guy who didn't skip his breakfast

>If you have 100 deaths in the "beltless" year, then you're expect 93 deaths the next year, all things being equal.

OK, but all things are not being equal since you have more accidents because of the raised speed limit therefore you have more fatalities

>Inb4 you're presuming all the accidents will be fatal

No, you're presuming that none will be. I'm saying some will be

>>13584703

I hate people who don't know any logic and don't have any interest in learning logic.

>>13579933

One option is missing from your list.

Seatbelts give wearers a false sense of security and so they drive more recklessly.

A similar phenomenon happens with bicycle helmets. Supposedly, cars driving past cyclists give wider berth to those with no helmets or safety gear and more closely to ones who do.

>>13585591

>I'm saying some will be

Which is the point. You're confusing a speculation with a resolution.

A gives you nothing more but the hypothesis that the increase in speed hikes up the death toll, but 'specifically' not enough to increase the death count. That's not a resolution, that's you imagining a cause.

Compare it too the pedestrian explanation, where you have unrelated numbers added to the total, which render the attempt to verify the seatbelt experiment from the total pointess. It resolves the discrepancy because it has a clear explanatory purpose.

"Muh cars fasterer" doesn't, because you're demanding that people assume that the same amount of traffic with seatbelts at higher speeds cancels out the intended effect of the belts perfectly. It could, but you have 'zero' evidence for that. A doesn't give you any. Again, you're just speculating, which is not a resolution.

>you're the guy who didn't skip his breakfast

It's a simple matter of order of operations, nigger. You don't apply the seatbelt reduction selectively - wjhat kind of nigger logic is it to assume differently when the initial text already tells us that the decline applies to ALL traffic fatalities on average? If you want to make a case that a car accident is lethal no matter what at certain speeds, you might want to pick a fucking example that doesn't take place in a city, where the speed increase likely went from 30-40 kmh to 45-65 kmh tops.

>>13585729

It does clarify it in the post so my bad for not reading all of it before commenting.

My point is that D also doesn't explain the discrepancy

>>13585729

Also how long will the linked file be there, do I have to download it or will a bookmark do

>>13585923

I don't know. I got it from here.

https://archive.org/details/how-to-lie-with-statistics-darrell-huff

>>13585174

D doesn't say no law before, law now. It says the laws have been rarely enforced and few drivers have complied with them. My point is we know this info is only pertaining to after the law was passed, whereas with E we don't know that the info is only pertaining to after the law was passed, it could be true for before the law was passed too, or not, we don't know this, but we know low enforcement and low compliance is only about after because you can't have enforcement and compliance of a nonexistent law. Since D tells us something about after which we know is not true for before we have in D something that contrasts before and after, we don't have this in E.

>>13586740

some are just too easy to spot

>>13586740

and its not a bad thing

>>13586729

About D:

>No law, Casualty Rate X

>Research shows after law CR should be X-7%

>But CR is the same

>Which would mean NOBODY obeyed the law, but the question says SOME obeyed it albeit a few

>If SOME obeyed then CR would drop from 1-6% instead of 7%, but not 0%

>Therefore D doesn't explain it

>>13587739

The question isn't asking for a complete explanation of the apparent discrepancy, it's only asking which option does not HELP resolve the apparent discrepancy. In other words there could be other factors too involved which we don't know about, but of the 5 options A-D HELP resolve the apparent discrepancy, they CONTRIBUTE to the resolution of the apparent discrepancy, this is not the same as being a full explanation. E does not.

>>13588244

>The question isn't asking for a complete explanation of the apparent discrepancy, it's only asking which option does not HELP resolve the apparent discrepancy.

Lmao really, that's your new angle ?

>A) You have one circumstance that drives deaths down (belts) and one that drives it up (speed) so the result is the same number of casualties

>B) one down (belts) one up (includes pedestrians now) = same

>C) one down (belts) one up (more traffic) = same

>D) one down (belts) NO UP !

>Not everybody wears belts but some do

>Hence there'd be a drop but less than expected

>Therefore you need a vector to drive the number up

>THERE IS NONE

>E)

>Most dead people don't wear seatbelts now

>Most dead people didn't wear seatbelts back then

>There is no down vector because nobody respects the law, few do wear belts but some people wear belts regardless of the law

>Therefore the up vector is not required

It's actually D, I thought D and E are pretty much the same but they are not, it's D and not E.

>>13588483

"About 7%" is average for areas with strict seat belt laws. We don't know that this city has strict seat belt laws. So we can't expect 7%, we just have something which tells us we should expect a decline. But for illustrative purposes let's say we should expect a 7% decline. In D let's say we should expect a 2% decline because few people comply with the seat belt laws.

In A, B, C it's because of an up vector.

In D it's because of a lack of a down vector to the extent we'd expect. You're asking the wrong question. The question is not "Why didn't we get -2% but instead -0%?", but rather "Why didn't we get -7%?". We don't need to account for the difference between -0% and -2%, which some unknown up vector causes, that's beyond the scope of the question, we need to account for the difference between -2% and -7%.

>Most dead people didn't wear seatbelts back then

We don't know this.

>nobody respects the law, few do wear belts but some people wear belts regardless of the law

We don't know this either.

E doesn't indicate anything at all, it's neither here nor there, it doesn't tell us about an increase or a decrease in fatalities. E is irrelevant. It's akin to someone asking how many percent of white men are classical composers, and someone replies 99% of classical composers are white men. Ok. Irrelevant, has nothing whatsoever to do with how many percent of white men are classical composers.

The right answer is E according to LSAC, who wrote the question.

https://forum.powerscore.com/viewtopic.php?f=587&t=4003

https://lsathacks.com/explanations/lsat-preptest-37/logical-reasoning-1/q-17/

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/-t3970.html

>>13589441

>We don't know this.

Of course we do

>>13590556

No, you are supposed to work with only the information in the question. The question does not tell you that most people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts before the law was passed. Even if it did tell us about the percentage of people killed in car accidents in the city who were wearing seat belts before the law it would be irrelevant, and not an indication of anything whatsoever.

>This week I was at flea markets and looked at radios that were from the 1950s. They were all still working, that means they have been working for about 70 years. Meanwhile most radios in stores today break within 10 years. Therefore clearly radios were much higher quality in the past.

No, you can't look at the radios that are still going and think they indicate this. What about all the radios from the 1950s which broke between then and now and which no longer exist? Maybe a very large percentage of radios from the 1950s broke in the 1960s, and the radios we have now from the 1950s are only the top 1% in quality?

>>13591210

see >>13591279

>>13589441

>You're asking the wrong question. The question is not "Why didn't we get -2% but instead -0%?", but rather "Why didn't we get -7%?".

The question literally says

>the city’s public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

>REMAINED THE SAME

Therefore

>If there's 2% drop

>There has to be a 2% uptick

To meet the criteria

There's no uptick

Also, you posted the thread and you don't know what it says lmao

>>13591279

>>E) Seatbelts drive F down. No up vector.

E doesn't tell us anything at all. It doesn't tell us about an increase or decrease in seat belt use, nor about an increase or decrease in fatalities, it doesn't tell us about any kind of increase or decrease in anything whatsoever, it's utterly useless information, ie not information which helps resolve the discrepancy.

>Most F in the last 2 years didn't wear seat belts

correct, we know this

>Most F before that didn't wear seatbelts

we don't know this, we have nothing in the text which indicates this, and you can't just run on what you assume to be true

>Some people use seatbelts regardless of law.

All we know is some people used seat belts after the law was passed, namely those of the killed who wore seat belts. We know nothing about how many people used seat belts before the law, could be none, could be all, or anything between none and all, we have zero information about it.

>There is no up vector

E doesn't tell us about anything that contributed to increase fatalities, correct

>But since situation is unchanged

we don't know this, E tells us absolutely nothing about a change or lack of change of any kind between before law and after law

>THERE IS NO DOWN VECTOR EITHER

E doesn't tell us about anything that contributed to decrease fatalities, correct

>Because the report indicates NO COMPLIANCE

I assume by report you mean the info we have in E, "In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.", this doesn't say nobody wore seat belts after the law was passed, if MOST people killed did NOT wear a seat belt, that means SOME people killed DID wear a seat belt, so just from that we know that some people complied and wore a seat belt after the law was passed. So what? Take a scenario where 90% of people wear seat belts, then you could have 80% of those killed in accidents not wearing seat belts, you could have 10% of people wear seat belts and 80% of those killed in accidents not wearing seat belts, you could have 50% of people wear seat belts and 80% of those killed in accidents not wearing seat belts. The percentage of people killed in accidents who were wearing seat belts does not indicate anything about the percentage of all drivers who wear seat belts, it doesn't indicate the percentage killed of all who are in accidents, and we know nothing about a change in the percentage of the killed who wore seat belts, but even if we did that change would be irrelevant. If the percentage of classical composers who are white men has gone from 99.99% to 90% in 200 years, does this tell us anything about an increase or decrease in the percentage of white men who are classical composers during this same time period, no.

Anyway I have to go to work now.

>>13591337

>>13591341

Just one quick thing before I go. Look at the graph for D. Imagine the blue line had no dotted part, and we still had the green line, then we'd be at -5%. The question you are supposed to answer is "Why are we at 0% rather than at -5%?", and not "Why are we at 0% rather than at -2%?".

>>13591461

>we don't know this, we have nothing in the text which indicates this, and you can't just run on what you assume to be true

According to that "logic" you don't know that in any case, therefore

>We don't know that people didn't wear seat belts before in A, B or C

>So to presume they did is just as valid as to presume they didn't

>Therefore it's not the wearing of the belt that prevents casualties but the letters on the paper

Pretty dumb take but more importantly it goes for ALL cases.

>>13591461

>Anyway I have to go to work now.

night shift?

>>13591522

For A, B and C it's irrelevant how many people wore seat belts before and after the law. The question says we should expect to see a decline in fatalities after passing this law, but we didn't, why? A, B, and C give other factors which contributed in the opposite direction, contributed to an increase which helps explain why we didn't see a decline.

The safety report indicates that fatalities decline in the areas where strict seat belt laws are passed. We know nothing about how many percent of people wore seat belts before or after in those areas, nor in the city. We do however have a contrast between a) the areas in the safety report and b) the info D gives about the city. This is the safety report says areas WHERE STRICT SEAT BELT LAWS ARE PASSED, and D tells us in the city seat belt laws were NOT STRICT. If strict seat belt laws resulted in a decline in fatalities, then it's not surprising if seat belt laws which are not strict have the same effect but lesser.

Regarding D

Bob: We should expect to see a decline in fatalities after we passed this seat belt law, but we didn't, why?

John: Your expectation is based on a report which was about areas where they had a high degree of enforcement and a high degree of compliance. In our city however there has been a low degree of enforcement and compliance.

Bob: Oh, I see. That helps explain why we didn't see a decline.

John: yes

Bob: However I think there are additional factors involved because we had some enforcement and compliance, but zero decline.

John: I agree.

Bob: Let's ask Paul if he knows about any additional factors.

Paul: A month ago on a very foggy day there was an oil spill on the highway. This resulted in a pileup where many people died.

Bob: John, did you hear that? This means the info you gave me does not help explain why we didn't see a decline.

Does Bob's last statement make sense or not?

An analogy

You and your workmates come back to work after a weekend. Nobody at your work works during the weekend. You all cleaned the kitchen at the workplace Friday. Now that you are entering the kitchen you expect to see it clean. But it's a total mess. Why? What could help resolve the discrepancy between what you expect to see, a clean kitchen, and what you did in fact see, a very dirty kitchen? In other words what could help explain why the kitchen is very dirty?

Turns out one workmate used the kitchen for a private party Saturday.

Does this help explain why the kitchen is very dirty? Yes.

Now it turns out this workmate came back Sunday and did a small amount of cleaning.

Does his small amount of cleaning Sunday mean his party Saturday does not help explain why the kitchen is very dirty?

>>13593870

so….night shift? what is your work?

>posts many posts about he hates everyone

>refuses to talk about it

>……

>faggot

is this you? Do you hide behind your logic? Does it hurt you to talk about your previous nasty comments?

I tell you now - until you can face your past sins and character your future character will not change,

why cant you not address this?

https://www.apollotestprep.com/apollo-explanations/2023/05/23/37-2-17-explanation

>>13593870

No comment on this by the Croatian anon?

Croatian anon busy?

>>13591763

Qrd?

>>13591522

>>13593870

No thoughts? Did my post change your mind or not? Do you still think it's D? Is there anything in my post you object to or want to comment on?

Don't want to shit up your thread, I'm glad you guys are mental flexing. I do however have to say FUCKING SEATBELT LAWS SHOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. I Have gotten a ticket for someone in my back seat. I should be alliwed to fly through my winshield if i please! Fuck seatbelt laws.

>>13600221

For something to be illegal there should be a victim. You can't be a victim to yourself because you would just refuse 2 press charges

>>13580584

>I got a bug that makes me post a picture whenever I post or it errors

same here, in firefox on android. using this Chance app resolves that, but now I can't attach pics. better than having to attach them.

>>13600247

Hmm…logic in a logic thread. Muh brain hurts.

>>13579933

It is E obviously. People dying from not wearing seatbelts doesn't make people wear seatbelts less or cause more accidents it is merely a result of them not wearing seatbelts. You could also come to the conclusion by process of elimination.

>>13600194

B easy. Not gonna write a paragraph explaing it as I'm not here to take an IQ test.

>>13596982

That one is easy to answer. Typing out all the logic and reasoning is tidious so just call them a retarded faggot and move on. No one is going to hold your hand and explain everything in detail for you like a debate online. You would not believe how many paragraphs I have half finished then just backspace and say Niggers Tongue My Anus.

>>13600485

https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/501668962

>>13600612

This was one of the best logic threads we had. Good times.

bump

>>13600485

I think I chose B too. It's wrong. The question looks easy but it's actually quite tricky. Want to try again?

https://yewtu.be/playlist?list=PLeamyERJVQLDHH0zijOOpqULKD6yU2Uxe

>>13579933

it's e

all of the other can justify to some degree the 'discrepancy'.

bump

Bump

bump