LR Problem Set 3, Question 265

[smile22]

From this question, I note that the stimulus is contributing the increase of skilled drivers to the decrease in the annual number of traffic fatalities. I get the causal element here ==> more skillful drivers CAUSED decrease in traffic fatalities.

My thought process for this question was as follows:

A.) introduction of an alternate cause (mandatory seat-belt law)
B.) introduction of an alternate cause (better roads)
C.) introduction of an alternate cause (increase in fuel prices)
D.) I chose this answer
E.) this is the credited response

So, my question is, why is answer D incorrect? Does this choice weaken the argument, because it introduces an alternate cause to the stated effect? So, does more hospital emergency facilities = increased capability to treat traffic injuries and therefore a decline in traffic fatalities?

Why is E correct? I would think that the mandatory driver education would introduce an alternate cause to the stated effect.

Thanks in advance for your help!

[BethRibet]

Hi Smile,

Thanks for the question. We're looking for an answer choice that does NOT weaken the conclusion that there are more skilled drivers.

D does weaken that conclusion, if we infer that increased emergency fatalities are caused in some part by more accidents (associated with less skilled driving).

E does not weaken the conclusion, as there is no basis to infer to that having to take driver education would make drivers less skilled.

Hope this helps clarify!

Beth

[smile22]

Thanks for the explanation!