A large number of drivers routinely

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   A person need not be a trained mechanic to install the

   Out of Scope: how it would be installed This has the attractive Necessary Assumption word "not". We should negate it, and if the negation hurts the argument, that means it's our correct answer. negation: A person does need to be a trained mechanic to install the device properly. Does that negation weaken the argument? No, the author never talked about how easy or practical the installation process would be. This argument doesn't deal with how it would be installed. The author isn't saying this Plan is likely to happen or should happen. He's just saying "if it did happen ... if we installed these devices on all cars, it would prevent most accidents". So the author hasn't committed herself to any details about how this plan would proceed, whether the government provides the installation or whether untrained people do it in their driveways.

   3%
2. B

   Opposite1% picked this

   Most accidents are caused by inexperienced

   The author is assuming that most accidents are caused by people going over the speed limit, not because they're inexperienced drivers.

   1%
3. C

   Correct70% picked this

   A driver seldom needs to exceed the speed limit to avoid an accident when none of the other drivers involved

   Why this is right

   This answer certainly doesn't look inviting, at first. It's a disguised version of the classic Defender answer: it is not the case that ... But instead of using "not", they're using "seldom". What's the logical opposite of "seldom"? If I said, "I seldom burp out loud." and you said, "Nuh-uh", you're arguing that I often burp out loud. So does the negation of this answer weaken the argument? negation: A driver often needs to go over the speed limit to make an evasive maneuver to prevent an accident. This would weaken. This means that in Plan World, the new anti-speeding devices might prevent some accidents that would have involved speeding drivers, but you're also going to create a bunch of accidents that would have been avoided, if drivers had the ability to temporarily speed up. Since the negation of the answer choice weakens the argument, it's our correct answer.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   70%
4. D

   Out of Scope: unintentional14% picked this

   Most drivers who exceed the speed limit do

   Whether or not they intended to speed or not will be irrelevant once their car has the anti-speeding device installed. People who accidentally speed and people who intentionally speed will both be capped out at going the speed limit.

   14%
5. E

   Out of Scope: other Plans12% picked this

   Even if the fines for speed-limit violations were increased, the number of such violations would

   The author never said this is the only Plan, the best Plan, the Plan we should do. He descriptively stated that "installing these devices would prevent most accidents". The only opinion in there is whether Cause would lead to Effect. So he's not assuming Other Plans, such as increasing fines for speeding, couldn't also be used to reduce the incidence of speeding.

   12%