#12- If future improvements to computer simulations of

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[arodvang]

Hi there,

I am wondering if someone can explain why A is right and B is wrong? I thought they both strengthened the argument, but went with B. I can see why A is correct, but don't understand how B can be completely wrong.

Thank you!

[kennypark17]

Hi there,

I am wondering if someone can explain why A is right and B is wrong? I thought they both strengthened the argument, but went with B. I can see why A is correct, but don't understand how B can be completely wrong.

Thank you!

Is it that "highly likely" is weaker than the fact that "actual test crashes provide little information of importance?" Let me know if I'm off the mark!

[James Finch]

Hi Kenny and Arodvang,

This question is tough because it asks us to strengthen a conditional statement, a rarely tested issue. To do that, we have to make the sufficient condition the only thing that matters (or at least make it more likely that it's the only thing that matters) to the necessary condition.

The issue with answer choice (B) is that it addresses an issue that is already addressed by the stimulus, which is how much safety information is gained by simulation vs. actual test crashes. Since we know that once that reaches 1:1, there will be far fewer actual crashes done (simulations taking their place), it doesn't matter whether the simulations will ultimately give more information than the actual crashes.

Instead, answer choice (A) gives us the crucial element we need, that practically the only information that is gained from the crash tests is about car safety, which the simulations will do equally well and at lower cost. This would make it a no-brainer to drop actual crash tests and move over to simulations, giving us the certainty that a conditional relationship requires.

Hope this clears things up!

[chian9010]

I think because this is a conditional statement (starting with "if future improvements..."), the only way to strengthen the statement is to make sure the condition will truly happen such that in the future, it is indeed possible to enable computers to provide reliable info and use it to simulate crash.

Therefore, I chose answer choice E because this is the only answer that strength our confidence on this statement or make the conditional statement more convincing that it will happen.

I have A and B in my contender but I still don't really understand why A is the correct answer.

[Adam Tyson]

There is more to strengthening a conditional claim than just showing that the sufficient condition will happen, chian9010. You have to also show that when that sufficient condition happens, the necessary condition does! To strengthen this argument, we need more evidence that the industry will, in fact, do fewer test crashes. Now here is where it gets really interesting - this stimulus combines elements of conditional reasoning with causal reasoning! The cause of fewer test crashes is the financial information, that crashes are more expensive than simulations. To strengthen fewer test crashes, eliminate other causes for doing them, like some other benefit of test crashes. That is what answer A is doing - eliminating other causes for choosing the more expensive option! There is no other benefit besides the safety info.

[snowy]

I also chose B - I read through the comments above and I understand why A could be correct, but I still don't understand why B is not correct. The argument is that "manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes, correct?

Doesn't B support that quite strongly by verifying the condition in the first statement that comes after the "if"? James said "The issue with answer choice (B) is that it addresses an issue that is already addressed by the stimulus," but isn't it not actually addressed since it's just posed as a conditional (i.e. saying "if" something happens isn't the same strength as saying something "will" happen)? Even though B does go beyond the requirement by saying even more information will be provided, it does still confirm the conditional/hypothetical posed by the first sentence, which I thought really strongly supported the argument.

Any insight on this would be super helpful; thank you so much in advance!!

[Robert Carroll]

snowy,

The first sentence of the stimulus is indeed a conditional. It's claiming that if a certain condition happens, manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes. The issue with this argument isn't at all whether that condition of improvement is technology happens. The author was already claiming that IF that happened, manufacturers would change their behavior in some way. The argument never shows exactly why this change in behavior would be appropriate in those circumstances. Answer choice (A) shows that the test crashes aren't particularly useful in a certain way, so, if technology allowed a computer simulation to garner important advantages of actual crashes without as much cost, it does make sense that behavior would change. Answer choice (B) just states that the conditions the author predicted would result in a change in behavior are pretty likely to happen soon - in fact, even better conditions, as the simulation will be better than, not just as good as, actual test crashes. The problem is...as I said earlier, the author never quite showed why behavior would change under those conditions. Saying the conditions are met still provides no reason at all to think those conditions will influence manufacturer behavior.

Consider a simple argument:

"If you take Main Street, you'll make your mother happy."

Odd argument! Why would taking that route make my mom happy? Answer choice (A) in this case would be something like "Main Street has a bookstore on it which carries the new book from your mother's favorite author. If you took Main Street, you could easily pick it up on the way to her house." OK, that makes some sense!

Answer choice (B) would be something like "You're going to the courthouse today anyway, and the courthouse is on Main Street, so you'll be taking Main Street." It confirms that the condition under which my mother will supposedly be happy is going to happen, but provides no explanation as to WHY that would make my mother happy.

Robert Carroll

[snowy]

Thank you so much for this explanation, Robert! That definitely clarifies it. I guess then it's better to view the argument as the whole statement from "If...crashes" so that the conditional is included as a given for the main part of the argument that fewer actual test crashes will be used? Thank you so much again!! I was staring at this one for super long and couldn't figure this out, but the way you explained it makes a lot of sense.

[MrMola]

Is C wrong because it goes outside of the scope of the stimulus when it mentions "Safety features"?