#10 - Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Weaken. The correct answer choice is (C)

The argument presented by this auto industry executive is on of opposition to increasing fuel efficiency. The executive bases this opposition on the fact that a 1977 move to increase fuel efficiency led to smaller cars and more fatalities.

The question stem asks for the choice which most weakens the executive’s argument. This is a weaken question that can be prephrased, if we notice the weakness in the exec’s argument: the opposition is not really based earlier fuel efficiency increases, but rather on the fact that smaller cars appear to have brought more fatalities. The executive clearly presumes that any effort to increase fuel efficiency must include a reduction in size. The correct answer choice will likely somehow reference this unjustified assumption.

Answer choice (A): This choice fails to weaken the argument, because the executive doesn’t claim that large cars are invulnerable—just that there is has at some point existed a correlation between smaller cars and more highway fatalities.

Answer choice (B): This choice actually strengthens the assertion that smaller cars are more dangerous; if the overall number of fatalities has decreased, and yet the number of smaller car based fatalities has increased, this means that the proportion of smaller car fatalities must have grown. Regardless, this choice fails to reference the weakness in the stimulus, and fails to weaken the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If the new guidelines can be met even by larger cars, then this negates the executive’s premise about the safety of smaller cars and the associated increase in fatalities.

Answer choice (D): This choice does not hurt the executive’s argument. Regardless of the gains in efficiency, the argument in the stimulus is based on safety concerns.

Answer choice (E): This choice fails to reference the weakness in the executive’s argument, which is the presumption that more fuel efficient = smaller.

[akanshachandra]

Hello, I still don't understand why C is right. I chose A because it says that large automobiles were involved in accidents, which shows that if they oppose to produce smaller cars with higher fuel efficiency, that doesn't mean that the large cars would be any more safe.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi akanshachandra,

Happy to try to help on this one. This question is asking for the strongest objection to the executive's argument, so we should first make it clear what the executive's argument is. The executive is arguing in opposition to recent fuel-efficiency guidelines, and the reasoning (note the language "For this reason,...") behind the argument is the previous sentence. Namely, cars were smaller after 1977 to meet fuel-efficiency standards.

In other words, the executive seems to be making the following argument: the increase in accidents after the 1977-guidelines are the reason for opposing the proposed higher fuel-efficiency guidelines.

So if (A) were true ("Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury"), that wouldn't quite get to the executive's argument. Larger vehicles could be frequently involved in accidents, which might be a reason that there should be guidelines. But even if this were the case, it doesn't attack the reasoning the executive provides for opposing the proposed new guidelines.

However, if (C) were true ("New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines") this would call the executive's reasoning into question. If large cars could meet the recent fuel-efficiency guidelines, then the post-1977 increase in accidents wouldn't be a good reason to oppose the new guidelines. It wouldn't be a good reason because those accidents resulted from a need to make smaller cars just to meet the guidelines, a need that is no longer present because of the "new computerized fuel systems" that would allow larger cars to meet the necessary guidelines.

[LSAT2020]

Were we supposed to make the assumption that the executive's conclusion also implies that producing cars with higher fuel efficiency also meant that the cars would be produced in a smaller size? I guess I can see how that's true. Since the first sentence in the stimulus tells us that other companies had to make their cars smaller in order to be more fuel-efficient. For some reason, this just feels like a big assumption to make. What if there is some other way to create fuel-efficient cars that doesn't involve making the car smaller? The stimulus doesn't tell us that the guidelines requiring the company to make fuel-efficient cars, also establish that they must make their cars smaller. I'm probably overthinking this. Would definitely appreciate some clarification. Thank you!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi LSAT2020

You are absolutely on the right track! You've identified what's wrong with the auto executive's argument. The executive says that these smaller, fuel efficient cars were less safe. Because of that, he opposes standards requiring fuel efficient cars. But just as you point out, there's nothing in the stimulus showing that fuel efficient cars must be made smaller. Just as you point out, there could be many other ways to make a car fuel efficient. That's why our correct answer choice is answer choice (C). It weakens the argument by providing a different way to make a car fuel efficient. So you were thinking of this argument correctly!

Hope that helps.
Rachael

[jwooon]

Hi,

quick question about determining assumptions before attacking strengthen/weaken questions.

When I initially saw this question, I thought that the assumption made by the auto industry executive was "fuel efficiency causes higher incidences of accident-related fatalities." I realize that I should have instead made the assumption that "small cars cause higher incidence of accident-related fatalities." While doing the question, I was able to switch my assumption, but I was wondering if my first assumption was incorrect? How do I make the right assumption first time around? Should I, like in this case, determine an 'adaptable' assumption (or even multiple assumptions) so that it can be adapted to different ACs?

[Dana D]

Hey Jwooon,

You can approach every LR question that has an argument with the same strategy - identify the conclusion (the argument) and then the premise used to reach that argument.

In this case, the conclusion is that the auto industry opposes the guidelines that require them to make cars with higher fuel efficiency. Why? Because the smaller, fuel-efficient cars had more fatalities than earlier, larger cars.

Once you identify the argument and method of reasoning, you can evaluate the argument. Here, it's easy to see that there is a disconnect between the size of vehicles and fuel efficiency. The author seems to be assuming that the only way to have fuel-efficient cars is to have them be these small, accident-prone machines, but that may not be true. To weaken the argument, we can exploit this assumption. To strengthen it, we would address it. If this was a flaw question, that would be a flaw in the argument. Does that make sense?

[jwooon]

Yes that makes sense!

So the assumption would be:
1. small cars cause accidents
2. you cannot make fuel efficient cars without it being small

So #2 is the assumption that is attacked.