#7 - Editorialist: The city council is considering

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw - CE. The correct answer choice is (B).

The editorialist concludes that increasing air traffic at the airport beyond the original design capacity will decrease safety, despite the latest safety technology being implemented. The support for this argument is that in previous studies 30 years ago, safety was reduced when airports expanded like this, even with the latest safety technology. The flaw in this argument is that it is comparing technology from 30 years ago and technology today as if they will be equally effective when we have no idea whether that will be the case. Today's technology is more advanced than it was 30 years ago, so it might be more effective in increasing safety than in the past.

We're looking for an answer choice that addresses this overlooked fact, which answer choice (B) does.

Answer choice (A) - The first half of this answer choice "the argument draws a conclusion on the basis of a general statement" doesn't really match what happened in the stimulus, and the 'very limited' number of instances, referring to the 30 year old studies, is incorrect because the stimulus says there were 'numerous studies'. Furthermore, this answer choice doesn't address the actual flaw of the arugment.

Answer choice (C) - This may be true, but this is not the flaw of the argument. Even if the stimulus included information regarding whether the council members were aware, there would still be a flaw in the argument, so this can't be the right answer.

Answer choice (D) - This answer choice says there was no reason to say the expansion is safe, and therefore the author is saying the expansion is unsafe, but really the author's evidence and argument against the expansion is explicit.

Answer choice (E). - The argument may fail to consider this, but that is not the flaw in the argument. Additionally, the author is arguing only that there will be decreased safety, not whether or not these increased risks are acceptable or not.

[mokkyukkyu]

Hello,

May I ask why A and D are wrong?
Also why is B wrong?
I thought A is correct because the data of 30 years ago is the limited number of particular instances.

Thank you!

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Mok,

B is the credited response.

The editorialist contends that exceeding design capacity would decrease safety based on numerous studies that concluded that all similar increases in size thirty years ago were accompanied by decreases in safety, even when the then-latest technology was used.

The flaw here concerns an analogy between the latest technology of thirty years ago and that of today. For your prephrase, you might consider something to the effect of: "The author makes a scurrilous analogy between old technology and new technology."

Answer choice B gives you a good match.

First, with A, you would have to clarify what your prephrase was and what you thought matched between this answer choice and the respective parts of the stimulus. The author does not draw a conclusion based on any general statement. He draws a conclusion based on the evidence of numerous studies, not from "a very limited number of particular instances."

With D, again there is not a match. The editorialist does not contend that the absence of evidence that the new expansion will be safe constitutes evidence that the expansion will not be safe. Rather, the editorialist provides his own flawed evidence to this effect.

I hope this explanation clarifies this problem for you.