shanhickey wrote: ↑Fri May 13, 2022 3:41 pm
hello PS!
I wholly don't understand this argument/flaw question. If the author can talk about how being on the road longer increases accident risk, why is it a flaw to say it increases emissions? I guess the distinction between D and E is still not making sense to me after reading through this forum chain.
Hi Shan!
I'll try to offer another (albeit similar) explanation for the flaw to help
When we first read this stimulus, it's pretty easy to spot out the conclusion and premises! Conclusion: reducing speed limits doesn't save lives or protect the environment. Premise(s): slower cars spend more time on the road, and thus more time spewing exhaust and potentially being hit by another vehicle.
With these in mind, we can start to prephrase some flaws! What if slower cars produce exhaust at a lower rate than faster cars (like .5 cubic meters per second while faster cars produce 2 cubic meters per second)? Even if the faster car is only on the road for 30 seconds while the slower car is on the road for 60 seconds, the faster car would then be producing 60 cubic meters of exhaust while the slower one would only be producing 30 cubic meters of exhaust -- sounds like an issue for the argument! Of course, this was a bunch of (largely unnecessary on the exam) math and perhaps not the most intuitive prephrase, but hopefully it helps illustrate the issue in another way. Another prephrased flaw may be how the author overlooks other benefits. What if reducing speed limits, even if it may increase time spewing/risk exposure, results in a net reduction in fossil fuel use and the likelihood of crashing entirely?
As we move into (D) and (E), it becomes apparent that the answers have some similarities. They both address presumptions of the argument and time on the road, but differ in their respective discussions of emissions and risk of collision. So, let's hone in on that distinction!
Answer choice (E) basically says the author assumed (wrongly) that significant risks of collision only come about when someone is on the road
a lot. My first thought is.. did the author even say that? Sure, the argument says that slower cars spend more time on the road which increases the risk of colliding with vehicles, but does the author say slower cars have a significant risk of collision? Or that faster cars have no risk of collision if they aren't on the road for a long time? Really, all the author is saying is that being on the road for longer inherent exposes you to more risk of collision by virtue of being on the road itself (as opposed to, say, being in your home -- where hopefully you don't face a risk of vehicle collision!) I say all this to help illustrate how (E) is not the specific flaw in the argument.
Answer choice (D), on the other hand, makes more sense! The author is assuming that total emissions are just a function of time (almost as if all cars had a fixed emission rate regardless of speed). But, as mentioned previously, what if rates differ by speed? Or something else entirely?
I hope this helps explain in another way!
-Kate
