#13 - Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Justify the Conclusion. The correct answer choice is (D)
In this stimulus, the politician says that using a car phone distracts the driver, which leads to unsafe driving; outlawing this practice will actually end the practice; so we should outlaw the practice.

This seems like a rather naive approach to policy. The politician is basically saying, "This practice has harmful effects, so we should outlaw it." The politician is failing to consider: (1) What about any benefits of this practice? Perhaps talking on car phones allows for more productivity, which is good for the economy and thus the general standard of living in society. Certainly unsafe driving is undesirable, but is "zero" really the socially optimal level of this activity? Also, (2) are there any other, less disruptive, methods for ameliorating the harms of this practice?

Note that the question stem is looking for a single answer choice which, by itself, will fully logically complete the argument.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice certainly supports the politician's claim that the law would improve driving safety, but it fails to address the concerns noted above.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice addresses concern (2) noted above, but it fails to address concern (1). Why are we so sure that we should do anything at all to reduce this threat? Maybe the benefits of talking on car phones are great enough that we should leave the practice as is.

Answer choice (C): Like answer choice (A), this answer choice supports the politician's claim that the law would improve driving safety, but it fails to address the concerns noted above.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it addresses all the concerns described above. If we follow this principle, then we should adopt any proposed law that reduces a threat to public safety, even if (1) the threat to public safety also has beneficial effects, and (2) there might be more efficient means of addressing the problem.

Answer choice (E):This answer choice does not really fill in any holes in the argument. Car phone use by passengers is a separate issue from car phone use by drivers. The politician is speaking narrowly about the public safety harms from car phone use by drivers.

[rachue]

I'm having a hard time understanding the explanation to question 11 (justify the conclusion).

Is there a way to map it out using the sufficient and necessary formulas and figure it out mechanically? I'm having a hard time visualizing it.

[Jon Denning]

This question could be considered mechanistically in a really loose sense I suppose, although I tend to view this as more of a hierarchy/umbrella type of proof that I'll elaborate on shortly. The mechanistic idea seems to apply best when each piece of an argument can be perfectly linked to another piece, creating a seamless "ball of logic" where there are no openings to attack. Like, a conclusion that introduces new information that the correct answer ties perfectly back to the premises (hence the new info, and the conclusion itself, is justified). Question 10 that precedes this one is a good example: moons orbit a planet in solar system (premise) + Alpha is only planet in solar system (answer) = any moons in solar system must orbit Alpha (conclusion).

This question doesn't lay itself out quite like that. Instead, consider what D, the correct answer says: ANY law that reduces a threat to public safety should be adopted. That's really broad, and really powerful. So laws about car phones and driving potentially fall under that umbrella, as does any other law. All you have to show is that the law in question reduces a threat to public safety and you're covered. Does the author show that about using car phones when driving? Sure: car phones distract drivers, making them less safe drivers, and car phone use would be reduced if it was illegal. Hence, we should adopt a law that makes using car phones while driving illegal.


Hope that helps!

JD

[rachue]

That helps but I don't understand why B can't be correct. Also, is there somewhere else where I can find more "justify the conclusion" practice problems? These types of questions are the ones I have the hardest time with.

[Jon Denning]

B is incorrect because it doesn't prove that the law should be adopted. That is, even if legislation is the only way to reduce the threat car phones pose to public safety, why should we adopt this particular law? Maybe we could just restrict usage on certain roads, or during certain hours, instead of making them completely illegal. Heck, why should we even try to reduce a threat to public safety at all?

So B simply doesn't give proof that the conclusion in the stimulus is correct or must be true, whereas D shows that the law in question should be adopted since ANY law that reduces a public safety threat (as this law does) should be adopted.

For more Justify, L5 HW has a mixed set of Assumption/Justify/Weaken, and the later lessons I mentioned previously have mixed sets with Justify questions, as well. Also, your practice tests and the online problem sets have a number of Justify questions.

[rachue]

Thanks! That helps a lot.

[lorein21]

On Lesson 4 HW page 4-75 problem # 11. It's about a politician that wants to make using car phones illegal.

I got B, but as I was doing the problem I felt trapped ABC, but felt B was he strongest. I eliminated D (the correct answer) after one read. I understand that this directly advances the argument by putting emphasis on the politicians concern over public safety, but the "Any" stopped me from picking this answer. I still think it is way too broad. Doesn't the "Any" now imply that the politicians would be willing to ban anything that was a threat to public safety? the stimulus seemed focused on car phone use while driving.

Hmm - just don't see it. General assumptions like this scare me, because they tend to not be the correct answers on many questions I've done so far in LR.

Would appreciate the help!

Thank You,
Lorein

[Eric Ockert]

Lorein

The use of the word "any" in answer D is actually what makes it attractive for a Justify the Conclusion answer choice. Your goal in selecting an answer here is to PROVE that the bill should be adopted. So, bold, sweeping language such as "any" is VERY effective in doing that. Here, if ANY proposed law that would reduce a threat should be adopted, and this law does reduce a threat, then it should definitely be adopted. In other words, the conclusion is proven.

You are right to notice language such as "any". But you must always keep in mind what you are trying to accomplish on the particular question stem. With Justify questions, bold, strong language is not a problem and is often very useful to prove the conclusion.

Hope that helps!

Eric

[willyhud]

I understand that D is correct but just want to make sure I'm thinking about answer choice C correctly...

(C) "Some distractions interfere with one's ability to safely operate an automobile." is stated, using slightly different words, in the stimulus itself I believe. Therefore it doesn't need to be assumed. In other words, C follows logically from the argument without making any assumptions at all.

Is that how PS would think about it?

[Steve Stein]

Hi willyhud,

Thanks for your question. First, let's recognize that this is a Justify the Conclusion question, so the correct answer choice will be sufficient to justify the author's conclusion. (this is different from an assumption that would be required of the argument).
So, the author's conclusion is that they should adopt the bill that will prohibit cell phone use. Which choice would justify that conclusion--that is, which choice, if assumed, would allow the author's conclusion to be justified? Correct answer choice D--any law that would reduce any threat should be adopted. If this is true, the author's conclusion is justified.
The problem with answer choice C is that it doesn't totally prove the author's conclusion, as the right answer must do in this case.

I hope that's helpful! let me know--thanks!

~Steve