#7 - Transportation official: I reject the claim that the ruts in our

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen. The correct answer choice is (C).

The stimulus here contains multiple causal relationships that we need to keep track of. The transportation official is making an argument here about the cause of the ruts in the city's roads. The stimulus starts out by telling us what the cause is not. The cause of the ruts is NOT large trucks. The official supports that idea by talking about other cities that are similar to the official's city. The other cities' roads have similar usage by trucks and similar amounts of snowfall. However, most of those cities do not have the number of ruts that the official's city has. The cities with roads that have a similar number of ruts allow studded snow tires just like the transportation official's city. He then draws the conclusion that the studded snow tires are the cause of the ruts in the roads.

Structurally, this argument is fairly simple. The official is arguing for a specific causal explanation for an issue with the roads. He starts by denying a causal link between an alternative, showing that when the alternative cause occurs, the effect does not always occur. He then shows an example of his suggested cause occurring, and the effect occurring. This is an effective means of providing some support for his position, but note that causal arguments are flawed by their nature. Any example where the cause occurs without the effect or the effect without a cause is going to weaken the argument. Any example where the cause occurs with the effect will strengthen the argument. In this strengthen question, we are likely looking for an example where the studded tires cause ruts in the road. Keep in mind that the other four answer choices may not weaken the argument. They will either weaken it OR will have no effect on the argument.


Answer choice (A): This answer choice tells us information about large trucks not wearing studded snow tires. It does not connect those trucks to areas where the roads have ruts or areas where the roads do not have ruts. This would not help or hurt the argument at all because it doesn't connect to our two causal relationships.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice can look tempting. The number of ruts is declining as the number of large trucks is declining. However, this is different than a causal explanation. We don't know if the ruts are declining because they are being fixed, or because there hasn't been snow. Ruts declining suggests they are being fixed and not added to. That is not the causal situation that we have in our stimulus, and we can eliminate this answer choice for that reason.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is exactly what we are looking for. The cause (studded snow tires) occurs with the effect (ruts) but not without the rejected cause (large trucks). The fact that this answer choice lines up with both the active cause suggested by the official as well as rejecting the cause the official also rejected means that this is the answer we need.

Answer choice (D): This is another answer choice that only deals with part of the issue from the stimulus, and further, it supports the causal explanation that the official rejects. The trucks occurring with the ruts is not what we wanted to see. We want to see the studded snow tires with the ruts. We can eliminate this answer choice.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice has no impact on the argument at all. It tells us that some places that don't have a lot of snow do not allow studded snow tires. However, it does not tell us anything about the effect in those cities. Are there ruts? Are there no ruts? We can't link this answer choice to our causal relationships without more in the stimulus. Therefore, we eliminate this answer choice as having no impact on the stimulus.

[rjhyman]

Hello! Can someone explain why C is a better choice than A? I see how C strengthens the argument but I thought A did too.

If we are able to conclude that "Large trucks are not allowed to have studded snow tires in many areas." then that strengthens the author's argument that it is not large trucks who are causing the ruts, but the "studded snow tires are to blame." Although, maybe I misidentified the conclusion?

Thanks in advance!

[katehos]

Hi rjhyman!

The transportation official's conclusion is that studded snow tires, not large trucks, are causing the ruts in the road. Good job noting that! In order to prove this conclusion, the author says that the places that allow studded snow tires (cause) have similar ruts (effect) to the city in the stimulus. One interesting thing you might also note after reading the stimulus is that the author doesn't mention whether or not large trucks frequent those areas with similar ruts, so a great prephrase is a situation in which there are studded snow tires (cause) with few, if any, trucks (absence of alternative cause) and similar ruts (effect).

Now, on to answer choice (A)! Try to ask yourself: if large trucks are not allowed to have studded tires, what does this mean for the argument? If large trucks do not have studded snow tires, yet areas with them still have ruts, does this make it more or less likely that the studded snow tires cause the ruts? Probably less likely! While we don't know if this ban applies to other types of motor vehicles, at a bare minimum, we now have fewer vehicles that are able to have studded snow tires (which are what the author believes is the cause) than before, yet the ruts (effect) are ever as present. At best, this answer choice has no effect on the argument, and, at worst, it weakens the argument.

Looking at answer choice (C), we see a situation in which the studded snow tires (cause) are present, there are not a lot of large trucks (absence of alternative cause), and yet the ruts (effect) are still similar and present! This strengthens the relationship by reinforcing that when the cause is present, so is the effect, as well as by further weakening the idea that the large trucks are the cause (showing the effect is present without this alternative cause). It's the best of both worlds!

I hope this helps
Kate

[marynetherton]

I think that option C is best. It further undermines the notion that the enormous trucks are the cause and reinforces the assumption that when the cause is present, so is the effect. As a result, the link is strengthened.

rocket bot royale

[Luke Haqq]

Hi marynetherton!

That's great to hear you find (C) supported, as it's the correct answer. This question involves cause and effect. The author of the stimulus disputes the claim that the cause is enormous trucks with the effect of damaged roads. Instead, the author believes that studded snow tires are to blame (the conclusion is, "Clearly, studded snow tires are to blame.").

Answer choice (C) strengthens the conclusion that studded snow tires are the cause. In that answer choice, there is an absence of the other cause (large trucks), but the effect is still present. In addition, this effect is present where an alternative cause (studded snow tires) are also present. This answer choice therefore strengthens that cause and effect relationship.