#17 - Politician: Over the next decade, our city will be

[Adam Tyson]

If the city replaces no signs annually, that would mean replacing them all over the next 10 years means spending money that would not otherwise be spent. That would support that it's a waste of money. As the old saying goes, why fix it if it isn't broken?

If the city replaces all signs annually, then it doesn't matter that nobody is complaining about the old signs because they are going to be replaced no matter what. Switching to the better signs doesn't necessarily mean spending any more money than was already going to be spent. That weakens the argument that it would be a waste of money.

Focus on the money, since that is what the conclusion is about.

[queenbee]

Hi
I chose (A) because I figured it would be good to know what exactly makes them more readable. If it is a valid change, then yes, it's a good move. If it's not a significant change, and, one that would confuse people even more because it was not easily interpreted, then it's a BIG waste.

How could I have used the variance test to avoid this mistake.

Also, 10 years is a long time. There could be all kinds of reasons why signs are changed due to damage (accidents, horrific weather, etc). Not sure how this plays into it. What if maintenance is every 20 years unless something is broken?

Would appreciate some help with this one.
Thanks!

[Paul Popa]

Hi Queen,

There's a few factors at play here that should be considered when evaluating the argument. The politician states that installing the new signs is a colossal waste of time and money, because no one is complaining about the current ones. (A) asks what new features the signs will have that improve readability, but there's a problem with this answer choice. Even if the new signs improved readability, if the old signs were perfectly readable, then yes, I guess the new signs are an improvement, but at what cost? Is it really worth it to install the new signs, even if readability is improved, if the old signs were fine just the way they are? That does sound like a waste.

Remember that the big issue the politician has is cost: both in hours and dollars. But as you mentioned, ten years is a long time. Signs need to be replaced for a variety of reasons: wear and tear, accidents, weather, etc. (C) raises an important question: what if the signs are to be replaced annually anyway? If some signs need to be replaced each year, and the city wants to have all signs replaced in 10 years, it could very well be worth it to install the news signs. Even if the sign is slightly more expensive, perhaps, it no longer qualifies as a waste because (1) the signs are better and (2) they need to be replaced anyway. Hope this helps!

[KG!]

But the conclusion is not just focused on money though. It's TIME and MONEY, right? I went with B and not C both during my blind review and timed test. I'm still not buying the previous explanations entirely. Here's my thought process below! Could you tell me where I went wrong please?

B: If they are more expensive to manufacture : It is a total waste of money!
B: if they are NOT more expensive to manufacture: well then yeah it's not a total waste of money to replace the current signs. We're told they're better signs so this gives a reason to go with the new ones.

C: If the percentage of replacement is HIGH: then well maybe it's not a waste of time, but it could also be a waste of money still. I was thinking perhaps it wouldn't be a waste of money given the high frequency but I thought this was too many assumptions/work on my end and we're taught not to work TOO hard for the answer.
C: If the percentage of replacement is LOW: then yeah it's a waste of time but still may not be a waste of money.

Overall, I thought that the waste of money was a more crucial factor and so in my analysis of C when I say that it didn't really answer that (for me) I went with B. I also didn't want to change my answer during the timed test to another answer I could only mildly support :/.

Please help and thank you in advance!

[Adam Tyson]

I think you are making too many assumptions about answer B, KG. If the new signs are more expensive than the old ones, that MIGHT do a little to support that it's a waste of money, but then again it might not. Maybe the benefits outweigh the costs? And if they are NOT more expensive to make, it still COULD be a huge waste of money, if the signs don't need to be replaced. Answer B only helps if you make certain unwarranted assumptions.

Answer C, on the other hand, needs no additional assumptions to have at least some impact. If the city normally would not replace any signs, then doing so wastes both time and money. If the city normally replaces all the signs every year, then no time will be wasted. We can't be sure about the money issue in that case, although this would suggest that it may not be a waste of money to replace the old sign with a better sign as long as we have to replace it anyway.

We aren't looking to prove the answer is correct with one response and disprove it with the other; we want to STRENGTHEN it with one response and WEAKEN it with the other. Only answer C does that without requiring us to make additional, unwarranted assumptions. Don't look for reasons why answer C may be less than perfect. Look instead for how it helps/hurts, and whether it does so more clearly than any of the other answer choices.