#26 - Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The editorialist's argument is that teenagers tend to be overrepresented in accident involvement. Making up only 7% of the registered drivers, they are at fault in over 14 % of fatalities. Since this is a Weaken X question, among the five answer choices, four incorrect answer choices will weaken the editorialist's argument, and the correct answer choice will not.

Answer choice (A): If teenagers tend to drive older cars, this presents another possible cause for their higher numbers of fatalities caused. If some of those are the result of old unreliable vehicles, then it might not do any good to place further restrictions on teenagers (as the deaths are not all attributable to bad driving)

Answer choice (B): This answer choice provides another explanation for more fatalities in this demographic (other than lack of basic driving skills). Since this answer choice also weakens the stimulus, it is incorrect in response to this Weaken X question.

Answer choice (C): If teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers, this might explain why teenagers cause more than their share of accidents. The author of the stimulus attributes the statistical disparity to a lack of driving skills, and this choice provides another possible explanation. Since this is an Except question, and this choice does effectively weaken the author’s argument, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This choice strengthens the assertion that the greater numbers of teen-caused fatalities might be caused by a lack of basic driving skills. Since this is the only answer which fails to weaken the argument in the stimulus, it is the correct response.

Answer choice (E): Much like incorrect answer choice (B) above, this answer provides an alternative explanation for the increased fatalities due to teens—it might not be their lack of basic driving skills, but rather their tendency to fill their cars, which would explain why less accidents could still lead to more fatalities.

[netherlands]

Hi there PS,

So in this question, not wearing a seat-belt is not a demonstration of a lack of basic driving skills?


Thanks!

[Jon Denning]

No, seat belts are no more indicative of how well someone drives than a life vest is of how well someone swims. It's just that lack of seat belts could be the reason for more deaths, rather than actual bad driving.

All you're doing here is looking for four alt causes (not bad driving) that would explain more wrecks/deaths. Worse cars, no safety devices, more time on road, and more passengers would all explain how more people would possibly die with teenagers. More serious wrecks on the other hand is quite likely to be the result of bad driving, so it doesn't give another reason for the statistics.

[netherlands]

Ok, well I do think I'm seeing where I didn't completely read this the way I should have:

Premise: Teenagers make up lesser percentage of drivers.
Premise: Teenagers cause 14% of fatalities.
Conclusion: Additional restrictions are needed because teenagers lack basic driving skills - which causes the fatalities.

But lack of passenger seat belts could show increase in fatalities without them driving poorly - whereas "D" explicitly states that they cause more serious accidents than others.

Ok, thank you!

[olafimihan.k]

how does teenagers driving farther than other drivers weaken the argument?

[nicholaspavic]

how does teenagers driving farther than other drivers weaken the argument?

Hi Olaf!

Answer choice (C) is offering an alternative explanation that teens compose a higher percentage of traffic fatalities because they drive more than other drivers, not that they lack the driving skills of older drivers. It's just that the younger drivers are more often put to the test of driving, so their rate of accidents will be disproportianately higher because they drive more but don't necesaarily have the same skill. This weakens the author's conclusion that teenagers lack basic driving skills which in turn cause deaths.

Thanks for the great question!

[jennyli0804]

Hi,

I don’t see how (D) strengthens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills. Teenagers could cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others simply because they drive faster than other people, and speed is not necessarily an indication of poor skill.

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be confusing "strengthening" a claim with "proving" a claim, jennyli0804! While it's true that answer D does not PROVE that teens lack basic driving skills, it certainly does help that claim! If you wanted to make a case for their lack of skills (which would include their ability to avoid serious accidents at whatever speed they choose to drive), then showing that they cause more serious accidents than other drivers would be pretty helpful to your case. Put another way, if you drive so fast that you cause accidents more serious than others, then maybe you shouldn't drive that fast? Staying within the limits of your abilities is a pretty basic driving skill, isn't it? (The father in me is coming out now - I want all my kids to slow down and stay safe!)

But let's say you're right, and this doesn't strengthen the argument. It doesn't weaken it, either, right? And since we are supposed to pick the one answer here that does NOT weaken the argument, answer D should still be a slam dunk. We don't need a Strengthen answer when faced with a Weaken-EXCEPT question. We just need an answer that does not weaken!

[jennyli0804]

I see, thank you! Could you expand on the difference between strengthening an argument and proving an argument?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Jenny!

"Strengthening" and argument just means that you are helping the argument out in some way, not necessarily proving that it is 100% true. "Proving" means that you are proving the argument is 100% true.

For example, let's say I have a simple argument:

My friend is a great tennis player.

A statement that might strengthen that argument is:

Strengthen: My friend has won a local tennis tournament.

This statement actually prove that my friend is a great tennis player. This could have been a fairly easy tennis tournament with only novice players. But saying that she has won a tournament certainly helps out my argument because she's at least good enough to beat some other people. I would still need to give you more information to fully prove that she's a great tennis player, but I'm definitely moving in the right direction and adding to your confidence that my argument is correct.

A statement that might prove that argument is:

Prove: My friend has won Wimbledon twice.

This is a much stronger statement telling you that my friend has won an international tennis tournament (Wimbledon) more than once. That basically proves that my friend is a great tennis player because she has won a tournament that all the best players in the world compete in. I don't need to give you any more information about my friend's tennis abilities to prove my argument that she is great at tennis.

So basically, to prove an argument, you have to fully support it 100% so that it must be true based on the evidence provided. To strengthen an argument, you just have to help it out. The argument might still end up being incorrect (in other words, it has not been fully proven correct yet). But you are adding information which helps the argument seem more likely to be correct.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey