#19 - In Australia the population that is of driving age has

[Jeremy Press]

Complete Question Explanation

WeakenX, #%, CE. The correct answer choice is E.

The argument's conclusion offers a causal explanation for the facts cited in the premise. The conclusion's causal explanation is that Australia's driving population has more skillful drivers on the whole than 5 years ago. The author thinks this is the cause of the facts we see in the premise, particularly that the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined.

CAUSE: More skillful drivers
EFFECT: Fewer annual traffic fatalities

On this Weaken EXCEPT question, any answer choice that weakens that causal relationship (for example, that suggests an alternate cause for the drop in number of traffic fatalities, or that suggests the absence of the cause, etc.) will be eliminated. We are looking for an answer choice that either strengthens the asserted causal relationship, or that has no impact on that relationship.

Answer choice (A): Answer choice A offers a potential alternate cause of the drop in annual traffic fatalities. More people wearing seat belts in the past three years could have the effect of reducing the number of traffic fatalities, and undermines the author's asserted cause of more skillful drivers. As a Weaken answer, answer choice A is thus incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Answer choice B offers a potential alternate cause of the drop in annual traffic fatalities. A road repair project could make the roads safer to drive on and reduce traffic fatalities, thus undermining the author's asserted cause (more skillful drivers). As a Weaken answer, answer choice B is thus incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Answer choice C offers a potential alternate cause of the drop in annual traffic fatalities. Driving fewer miles could leave fewer opportunities for getting into fatal traffic accidents, thus undermining the author's asserted cause (more skillful drivers). As a Weaken answer, answer choice C is thus incorrect.

Answer choice (D): Answer choice D offers a potential alternate cause of the drop in annual traffic fatalities, though in a slightly more roundabout way than the previous three answer choices. Having more hospital emergency facilities could allow Australia to deal more effectively with those patients who have been involved in traffic accidents, thus preventing fatalities. Since this could undermine the author's asserted cause (more skillful drivers), answer choice D weakens the argument and is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice E strengthens the asserted cause, making it more likely that drivers in Australia are more skilled, and that having more skillful drivers is the cause of the drop in annual traffic fatalities. With drivers having to undergo mandatory driver education, it is likely that drivers in Australia are more skilled as a result. Since answer choice E does not weaken the argument (and in fact strengthens it), it is the correct answer on this Weaken Except question.

[astroworld]

Hi,

I do not understand how (E) is the answer instead of (D). Please help!

P: Increase of driving age population
P: Decrease of # traffic fatalities
C: Overall, driving age population have more skilled drivers

(D) says that the number of hospital emergency facilities has doubled over the last 5 years, and I do not understand how the number of emergency facilities doubling could weaken the argument. I didn't see the relevance because the fact that there are more emergency facilities doesn't necessarily mean that there is no decrease of # of traffic fatalities(attacking premise2), and I also didn't see it attacking the link with the conclusion as well.

(E) says that Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education, which I thought provided another explanation for the reason there were less traffic fatalities. Then I realized during my review that it was actually supporting the conclusion , which in fact was strengthening the argument. But I still couldn't see how (D) weakens the argument.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi astroworld,

Please check the complete question explanation I posted above, and let us know if this resolves your questions--thanks!

[a19]

Hi,

So I am going to echo the question that the previous student had. I completely understand the foundations of the question. 1) We've created a cause and effect relationship between skill (C) and lessened fatalities (E). 4 of our answer choices are going to suggest either a) the effect was actually the cause, b) that there was no relationship, or c) that there were some tertiary force which caused both a and b. The last answer choice with either strengthen the relationship or do nothing.

The problems which I have are here:

1. D. The increase of emergency facilities potentially offers another cause for the effect of less fatalities. But this alone is not convincing to state that this is in fact another cause. What if over the past five years rabid kangaroos were attacking the population, filling all of the emergency beds, and that is why there are more hospitals? That is to say the increase in hospitals itself was an effect and not a cause. There is potential for it to be a cause, but its really not strong.
2. E. Why does "education" equal "skillful"? Many people are educated in various fields, but they are not all skillful.
3. An important point that I noticed in writing this out is that both D and E have the force of being "potential" neither seems to definitively offer either a super strengthening reason for education equaling skill nor hospital emergencies saving lives of people who are in accidents. Does this mean that we need to just take into consideration the direction in which each answer choice leans? Like potential to weaken versus potential to strengthen?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi a19,

Good questions!

In regard to your point on answer choice D, I agree that it's not definitive proof that the conclusion is false. But, in a Weaken question, we're not looking for definitive proof. Rather, we're looking for a fact that makes the conclusion somewhat less likely to be true. Answer choice D does in fact provide a possible alternative explanation, so even if it's not a definitive alternative explanation, it introduces some small doubt that the skill of drivers is the cause of reduced fatalities. That's all we need out of a Weaken answer!

Regarding answer choice E, education may not always lead to greater skill, but it's pretty likely it does in at least some cases. So again, there's likely to be some Strengthen impact to answer choice E. But, and this is key, if education has literally no connection to skill, answer choice E can't do anything to weaken my conclusion. It doesn't provide another (non-skill based) reason for the reduction in fatalities. After all, how could education reduce fatalities unless it had something to do with the driving capacity of the drivers who are getting educated?

And that last comment likely answers your very good last question. Answer choice D has potential to weaken, whereas answer choice E does not. So eliminate answer choice D (it's a slight weakener) and hold on to E (it can't weaken at all)!

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[ericj_williams]

Hi,

I do not understand how (E) is the answer instead of (D). Please help!

P: Increase of driving age population
P: Decrease of # traffic fatalities
C: Overall, driving age population have more skilled drivers

(D) says that the number of hospital emergency facilities has doubled over the last 5 years, and I do not understand how the number of emergency facilities doubling could weaken the argument. I didn't see the relevance because the fact that there are more emergency facilities doesn't necessarily mean that there is no decrease of # of traffic fatalities(attacking premise2), and I also didn't see it attacking the link with the conclusion as well.

(E) says that Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education, which I thought provided another explanation for the reason there were less traffic fatalities. Then I realized during my review that it was actually supporting the conclusion , which in fact was strengthening the argument. But I still couldn't see how (D) weakens the argument.

I think it actually requires us to assume that more educated drivers are more skillful, which is not necessarily true unfortunately. I think E is the closest to NOT offering an alternate explanation.

C sucks because again, I have to make an assumption and connect more ER's with the ability to reduce fatalities.

This is why I had when prep companies tell you to be careful about assumptions, when each of the wrong answers here requires me to make some connection between the concept in the answer and fatalities.

For example, does a major road repair project actually mean fewer fatalities? No, how many people actually drive on the roads being repaired? I have to assume the roads being repaired are actually being used, and that the repairs are beneficial in reducing fatalities. What if the road repairs are terrible and actually make things worse. I have to make assumptions about all of these incorrect answers. Just hope you make the ones the test makers intended you to.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi eric,

It seems like you are confusing weaken with destroy here. In weaken questions, we are looking for answer choices that hurt the argument in any way. They don't have to be rock solid. They might only hurt it a pin prick. They allow for the possibility of a connection, and that possibility is where the weakness comes in.


But they do weaken it by suggesting there could be other causes. A mandatory seat belt law could explain the decrease in fatalities, as could better roads, fewer miles per driver, and more hospitals. More drivers' education doesn't give us a different cause then better driving. It could explain how we got to better driving, but it wouldn't be an alternate cause.

Other question types require different sorts of certainty, so it's important you understand what the structure is of each stimulus and question, as well as your goal for each question type.

Hope that helps!

[tkkim7]

I was torn between B and E and ended up going for B because I thought that for this AC to weaken we would need to assume that not only did Australia begin the road repair project five years ago but also that they finished/made enough progress to positively affect road conditions or something like that. But the AC only states that Australia began the project and nothing on the progress or its effects. Couldn't it be possible that the major road project began but stalled due to lack of funds or something and therefore left Australia's roads in way worse conditions leading to the denial of an alternate cause(i.e. better, safer roads)?

As for E, doesn't this AC also rely on the assumption that drivers ed = more skillful drivers? What if the drivers education never actually focused on improving skills but on safety measures, for example, emphasizing seat belt usage? Wouldn't this constitute an alternate cause? I know for this to work I obviously have to assume that the drivers education focused on such measures, but I can't seem to figure out when and when not to make assumptions in going through ACs.

Thanks so much.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi tkkim,

Exactly, answer choice (E) does not weaken because we don't know how it connects to skill or fatalities based on the language in the answer choice alone. It could be focusing on skills improvement, which would strengthen the argument. Or it could focus on other sorts of drivers' education, which would potentially weaken the argument. We aren't sure just based on the answer choice.

Answer choice (B) does weaken by providing that alternate cause. Road repairs typically show some improvement in a five year period. They don't have to be complete, but it would be unusual for nothing to be repaired in a whole five year span. It's a reasonable assumption to assume that something has happened in the five years.

Hope that helps!