#12 - Despite the fact that antilock breaks are designed to make driving

[pablourioste]

Why is the correct answer E? I reasoned it meant antilock breaks have a fundamental design flaw and do not perform correctly in highways where most accidents happen as they weren't designed for this situation, thus the discrepancy is resolved when the design flaw is revealed. Therefore, E fails the "Except" standard.

I thought it was C because it makes a statement about a third thing, namely the need for maintenance, and we have no way of knowing if all car owners are diligently following up or not on the maintenance, so it doesn't resolve the paradox and its irrelevant.

Please explain?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi pablourioste,

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it focuses on serious accidents, whereas the stimulus just compares how many accidents each type of car has. It doesn't give us the information that we need about the overall number of accidents in each type of car. Therefore it doesn't resolve our argument.

Answer choice (C) on the other hand helps to explain why they aren't as safe in practice. They require expensive maintenance, otherwise, they work less well than regular breaks. That explains why they are expected to be safer, but in reality, they are not. It gives us a reason that the expectation doesn't match reality.

Hope that helps!

[conorrjohnston]

Hi pablourioste,

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because it focuses on serious accidents, whereas the stimulus just compares how many accidents each type of car has. It doesn't give us the information that we need about the overall number of accidents in each type of car. Therefore it doesn't resolve our argument.

Answer choice (C) on the other hand helps to explain why they aren't as safe in practice. They require expensive maintenance, otherwise, they work less well than regular breaks. That explains why they are expected to be safer, but in reality, they are not. It gives us a reason that the expectation doesn't match reality.

Hope that helps!

Hi! I was still confused by Answer Choice (E) even so. Given that we're assuming the information in (E) is correct, wouldnt the fact that they tell us that the antilock breaks are designed in a urban driving setting, where most accidents do not occur, have a common-sense implication of a design flaw, giving way to the explanation that they're not safer? I'm confused how this answer doesn't resolve the paradox.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi conorrjohnston!

Regarding answer choice (E), you mention that "they tell us that the antilock breaks are designed in a urban driving setting, where most accidents do not occur." Just a couple points of clarification. One is that they don't say they are designed "in" an urban setting but rather that they are designed "for safety in" an urban setting. Another is that the answer choice doesn't say that most accidents do not occur there--just that accidents of the most serious nature take place on highways.

Hopefully those clarifications make (E) less appealing. On its own, (E) doesn't reconcile the paradox about (1) antilock brakes supposedly being safer, and (2) people with antilock brakes getting into more accidents than those without them. Even if (E) were indicating a design flaw, that would seem to get rid of (1), whereas in a resolve the paradox question, one has to keep both aspects of the paradox as remaining true.