- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8952
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 03, 2016 11:07 am
#23855
Complete Question Explanation
Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (A)
Even though antilock brakes (ABS) reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions and thus save lives, the consumer activist maintains that, to save lives, car manufacturers should stop equipping cars with ABS. To explain this bizarre position, there must be a serious downside to having a car equipped with ABS. For instance, if having ABS gives us a false sense of security and makes us drive carelessly, then the lives saved by avoiding multiple-car collisions can still be lost in other types of accidents. Because answer choice (A) gives one possible reason for the consumer activist’s position, it is the correct answer choice.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.
Answer choice (B): While this answer choice suggests that having ABS is not always a necessity, it is still unclear why the activist believes that, to save lives, manufacturers should stop equipping cars with ABS.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice makes the paradox even more confusing. If inexperienced drivers have an easier time using ABS than traditional breaks, why would the consumer activist oppose their use? The correct answer choice will indicate that having ABS represents a disadvantage, not an advantage.
Answer choice (D): While the high cost of ABS might explain why someone would oppose their use, it is still unclear why the activist believes that eliminating ABS might save lives. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): Comparing the effect of ABS on multiple-car collisions to other types of accidents is entirely irrelevant to the activist’s argument. Given that the use of ABS reduces the incidence of multiple-car collisions, if answer choice (E) is true, we can expect that ABS may also reduce the incidence of other types of accidents as well. Why the activist would still oppose their use is unclear.
Resolve the Paradox. The correct answer choice is (A)
Even though antilock brakes (ABS) reduce the incidence of multiple-car collisions and thus save lives, the consumer activist maintains that, to save lives, car manufacturers should stop equipping cars with ABS. To explain this bizarre position, there must be a serious downside to having a car equipped with ABS. For instance, if having ABS gives us a false sense of security and makes us drive carelessly, then the lives saved by avoiding multiple-car collisions can still be lost in other types of accidents. Because answer choice (A) gives one possible reason for the consumer activist’s position, it is the correct answer choice.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.
Answer choice (B): While this answer choice suggests that having ABS is not always a necessity, it is still unclear why the activist believes that, to save lives, manufacturers should stop equipping cars with ABS.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice makes the paradox even more confusing. If inexperienced drivers have an easier time using ABS than traditional breaks, why would the consumer activist oppose their use? The correct answer choice will indicate that having ABS represents a disadvantage, not an advantage.
Answer choice (D): While the high cost of ABS might explain why someone would oppose their use, it is still unclear why the activist believes that eliminating ABS might save lives. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): Comparing the effect of ABS on multiple-car collisions to other types of accidents is entirely irrelevant to the activist’s argument. Given that the use of ABS reduces the incidence of multiple-car collisions, if answer choice (E) is true, we can expect that ABS may also reduce the incidence of other types of accidents as well. Why the activist would still oppose their use is unclear.