- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:38 pm
#32545
Complete Question Explanation
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%, CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
Here, the stimulus author considers the higher number of pedestrian injuries that occur at crosswalks “marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights” compared to the number of injuries that occur at crosswalks that are not marked in that way and, presumably, are less heavily marked. Because of the greater number of injuries at the more heavily marked crosswalks, the author concludes that the “so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.”
For an argument to properly rely on a comparison between two things, those things must actually be similar. In this argument, the author treats the crosswalks as being identical, other than for the presence of safety features at some crosswalk that are missing from the others. This “sameness” relied on by the author necessarily includes the assumption that the crosswalks are inherently equally dangerous. But we are given no reason to think the crosswalks are the same. To the contrary, there may be some reason that some of the crosswalks have more safety features than the others. Perhaps the reason is that the crosswalks with the safety features are inherently more dangerous. In that case, the safety features could provide some benefit in reducing the number of pedestrian injuries, yet there still could be more pedestrian injuries occurring at the crosswalks with these features.
The question stem establishes this as a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the failure by the argument to consider the possibility that the crosswalks with the safety features are inherently more dangerous than the other crosswalks. And, that danger, though mitigated by the safety features, produces the higher number of accidents.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the argument treated the crosswalks as if they all involved the same risk to pedestrians, when there was some reason, i.e., the increased safety features at the more dangerous crosswalks, to conclude they were different.
Answer choice (B): Assuming, as did the stimulus author, that the crosswalks are essentially the same other than the provision of safety features, the evidence was not that the safety features fail to reduce the number of injuries, but rather that more injuries occur when the safety features are present.
Answer choice (C): The argument does not mention replacing the current safety features with any other devices, let alone less expensive ones.
Answer choice (D): The argument does not presume that the named safety features are the only safety features at the crosswalks.
Answer choice (E): While it is true that the argument does not consider this comparison between injuries to pedestrians and injuries to the occupants of cars, that comparison is irrelevant to the conclusion. It is not a logical flaw to ignore information irrelevant to the conclusion.
Flaw in the Reasoning—#%, CE. The correct answer choice is (A)
Here, the stimulus author considers the higher number of pedestrian injuries that occur at crosswalks “marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights” compared to the number of injuries that occur at crosswalks that are not marked in that way and, presumably, are less heavily marked. Because of the greater number of injuries at the more heavily marked crosswalks, the author concludes that the “so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.”
For an argument to properly rely on a comparison between two things, those things must actually be similar. In this argument, the author treats the crosswalks as being identical, other than for the presence of safety features at some crosswalk that are missing from the others. This “sameness” relied on by the author necessarily includes the assumption that the crosswalks are inherently equally dangerous. But we are given no reason to think the crosswalks are the same. To the contrary, there may be some reason that some of the crosswalks have more safety features than the others. Perhaps the reason is that the crosswalks with the safety features are inherently more dangerous. In that case, the safety features could provide some benefit in reducing the number of pedestrian injuries, yet there still could be more pedestrian injuries occurring at the crosswalks with these features.
The question stem establishes this as a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will describe the failure by the argument to consider the possibility that the crosswalks with the safety features are inherently more dangerous than the other crosswalks. And, that danger, though mitigated by the safety features, produces the higher number of accidents.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, the argument treated the crosswalks as if they all involved the same risk to pedestrians, when there was some reason, i.e., the increased safety features at the more dangerous crosswalks, to conclude they were different.
Answer choice (B): Assuming, as did the stimulus author, that the crosswalks are essentially the same other than the provision of safety features, the evidence was not that the safety features fail to reduce the number of injuries, but rather that more injuries occur when the safety features are present.
Answer choice (C): The argument does not mention replacing the current safety features with any other devices, let alone less expensive ones.
Answer choice (D): The argument does not presume that the named safety features are the only safety features at the crosswalks.
Answer choice (E): While it is true that the argument does not consider this comparison between injuries to pedestrians and injuries to the occupants of cars, that comparison is irrelevant to the conclusion. It is not a logical flaw to ignore information irrelevant to the conclusion.
