#21 - A small car offers less protection in an accident

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (E)

The argument presented here is that it is better to drive a small car because, although it offers less
protection, a smaller car is more maneuverable, making accidents less likely.

The argument makes the questionable assumption that the gain from decreasing the likelihood of an
accident outweighs the loss associated with driving a car less protected.

Since the question asks us to parallel the reasoning, it is valuable to consider the general reasoning. The
argument proceeds by weighing opposing considerations, and arrives at the determination that the pros
outweigh the cons.

Answer choice (A): Since this answer does not involve the weighing of considerations to make a
decision, this choice does not reflect the reasoning in the argument.

Answer choice (B): In the stimulus, the opposing considerations both speak to safety. In this choice, the
opposing considerations do not speak to the same end goal.

Answer choice (C): This choice might seem attractive because it has an immediate similarity. However,
the reasoning is geared towards which option is more costly, but concerns which option is more
practical, and that constitutes a questionable leap from costliness to practicality. Furthermore, since this
choice does not involve any sort of risk assessment, it does not parallel the reasoning in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): This is an argument for finding a happy medium, but the stimulus did not advocate
purchasing a mid-sized car, so this choice is wrong.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Exercising vigorously makes one more
vulnerable if one catches a wasting illness, but exercising vigorously decreases the risk of contracting
such illness, so the argument concludes that one should exercise vigorously. This represents exactly the
same type of risk assessment as that found in the stimulus.

[emilysnoddon]

I think I understand why answer choice E is correct but I had a very difficult time conceptualizing this argument in abstract terms. I was thus thrown off by answer choice E because it is talking about the same person doing two different thins whereas the stimulus is comparing two physically different objects. Could you please use abstract terms to describe the stimulus and how this reflects the reasoning in E?

Thank you,

Emily

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Emily,

This is a tough question. The stimulus boils down to this:

A small is better than a large car. Even though a large car gives you more protection in case of an accident, a small car means you're less likely to have the accident in the first place.

In abstract language, the author compares two things (A and B), each of which carrying a potential cost, or downside (the accident). Although B makes the potential cost easier to tolerate (the large car offers more protection in case of an accident), the author prefers A, which carries a lower risk of sustaining the cost in the first place (small cars are less likely to be involved in accidents).

So, what are you looking for? An argument that compares two possibly harmful options and chooses the one that makes the harm less likely to occur. How is that for a prephrase?

This is precisely what answer choice (E) states: exercising carries a disadvantage (less body fat to draw upon in case of a wasting illness) relative to the average person, just like a small car carries a disadvantage relative to large cars in case of an accident. However, exercising makes the wasting illness - the "accident," if you will - less likely to occur, just like a small car carries a lower risk of accident. Because of this, exercising - just like the small car - is the preferred option.

Hope this clears it up! Let me know.

Thanks,

[Tuothekhazar]

Hi Emily,

This is a tough question. The stimulus boils down to this:

A small is better than a large car. Even though a large car gives you more protection in case of an accident, a small car means you're less likely to have the accident in the first place.

In abstract language, the author compares two things (A and B), each of which carrying a potential cost, or downside (the accident). Although B makes the potential cost easier to tolerate (the large car offers more protection in case of an accident), the author prefers A, which carries a lower risk of sustaining the cost in the first place (small cars are less likely to be involved in accidents).

So, what are you looking for? An argument that compares two possibly harmful options and chooses the one that makes the harm less likely to occur. How is that for a prephrase?

This is precisely what answer choice (E) states: exercising carries a disadvantage (less body fat to draw upon in case of a wasting illness) relative to the average person, just like a small car carries a disadvantage relative to large cars in case of an accident. However, exercising makes the wasting illness - the "accident," if you will - less likely to occur, just like a small car carries a lower risk of accident. Because of this, exercising - just like the small car - is the preferred option.

Hope this clears it up! Let me know.

Thanks,

Just my humble 2 cents share here

A( X ) < B ( X ) / Z1 = Under the accident, the protection of small car is less than it of larger car.

A (Y ) > B ( Y ) = Smaller car is more maneuverable than larger car

Y -> % of Z2 & %Z2 < %Z1 = Being more maneuverable lessen the possibility of accident.

So, A better than B

1. Characteristic and relationship with each different parties comparison:
The relationship between the characteristic, protection, of small car and larger car.
The relationship between the characteristic, maneuverable, of small car and larger car.

2. How many scenario ?

The number of the accident vs The decreased number of the accidents due to the characteristic of being maneuverable


A - A( X ) > B ( X ) ( Work done before becoming famous is better than after being famous ), B + C ---> X suffers. so, B ---> lower E ( X )

We can actually just eliminate this options from the second premise that introducing the conditional logic.

B - A(x) --> B ( Children reading indoor leads to unhappiness ), A(x) ---> C ---> E+ D ( Children reading indoor will be benefited by learning to enjoy books and becoming prepared for life long learning ), so A(x) should best be insisted ( Children reading indoor should best be insisted )

Not really similar to the structure we have seen from the argument.

C. A(x) > B(x) / Z, practically speaking, car using lightweight material is better than it using heavy material, Ax(T ) < Bx ( T ), the durability of light weight car is less than the heavy car, so, Ax(c ) > Bx ( C ), it is cheaper to replace light weight car than heavy weight car.

At the first sight, it may assemble few of the features that we had seen from the original argument; however, instead of only mentioning 2 characteristics, protection and manuverability as stimulus does, answer c mention 3 different kinds of the characteristics, weight of the materials, durabilities, and the degree of being cheap. Secondly, based on the original argument that the 2nd characteristic, maneuverability, would decrease the possibilities that incident happened, and its how stimulus extrapolates small car is better than larger car. However, we do not see such relationship happen it answer c, so its not paralleled.

D. It about to find the middle ground, but not making the comparison between 2 parties as stimulus.

E. A( x) < B ( x ) / Z1 ( People who exercise vigorously every day has lower fat than people who do not in the event of wasting illness ), A( Y ) > B ( Y ), the amount of the exercise people who exercise vigorously must higher than it of people who do not, Y ---> %Z2 and %Z2 < %Z1 ( Exercise Vigorously decrease the possibilities that event of the wasting illness ) so A better than B.

This is by far the most paralleled one. Not perfect, but compared with any other 4 answers, this one is definitely better.

[Noodles93]

Is there anything else in B that clearly shows it is a wrong answer, besides what the first post mentioned: "Answer choice (B): In the stimulus, the opposing considerations both speak to safety. In this choice, the
opposing considerations do not speak to the same end goal." ?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Noodles93!

It can potentially help to abstract what is in the stimulus. In more general terms, the stimulus is saying that, in comparison with Y (large cars), X (small cars) comes with more of harm A (less protection). However, the stimulus concludes that X is preferable to Y because that risk of harm A is presumably offset by the X's benefit of B (accidents will be less likely). Note that the harm A and benefit B are both about safety.

With that abstraction in place, answer choice (B) doesn't really fit the mold. (B) seems to be saying that X (spending time some time indoors) is better than Y (spending no time indoors?) because, although X causes some harm A (unhappiness), it also comes with some benefits of B (learning to enjoy books and preparing for lifelong learning). While this may look close to fitting, the administrator's post accurately describes that they don't match because A and B aren't speaking to the same end goal.