Mayor: Citing the severity of the city’s winters

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: wouldn't have any3% picked this

   Using rubberized asphalt to pave roads would not have any advantages besides facilitating the removal

   The author doesn't need to think that the only advantage rubberized asphalt has is facilitating ice removal. Maybe it also looks cooler and smells great. That doesn't change the author's argument in any way, since her argument is just about whether it is / isn't financially feasible, not whether it is / isn't desirable.

   3%
2. B

   Irrelevant Distinction1% picked this

   The severity of winters in the region in which the city is located does not vary significantly

   This answer has the lovable form of ruling-out an idea using "not" (that is frequently how correct answers on Necessary Assumption appear). If we negate this answer, does it weaken? The severity of winters does vary significantly from year to year. No, that has no effect. There's no way to use that idea to suddenly argue that "even though rubberized asphalt is more expensive and our budget can't be increased, it is financially feasible to use rubberized".

   1%
3. C

   Irrelevant Comparison3% picked this

   It would cost more to add particles of rubber to asphalt than to add particles of rubber to other materials that

   There's no reason the author needs to think "rubber + asphalt" costs more than "rubber + cement" or any other material used to pave roads. If we negate this and say that "adding particles of rubber asphalt costs the same as adding particles of rubber to other road materials", that's not going to hurt the argument in any way. The author only cares that rubberized asphalt costs more than plain asphalt. She doesn't care if rubberized asphalt costs more than rubberized cement.

   3%
4. D

   Correct90% picked this

   Savings in the cost of ice removal would not pay for the increased expense of using rubberized

   Why this is right

   Like (B), this has the lovable ruling-out "not" that is typical of so many correct answers in Necessary Assumption. If we negate it, does it weaken? The savings we could get from the lower cost of ice removal (were we to use rubberized asphalt), would pay for the increased expense of using rubberized asphalt. Heck yeah, that weakens! This negation would allow us to argue that paving the roads with rubberized asphalt is financially feasible. Sure it costs more, and sure we can't increase our budget, but we don't need to --- the rubberized asphalt pays for itself because of how it reduces the part of our budget that goes to ice removal.

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

   90%
5. E

   Weakens, if anything2% picked this

   The techniques the city currently uses for removing ice from city roads are not the least expensive possible, given the type

   This also has the ruling-out "not". When we negate it, does it weaken? The techniques they currently use to remove ice are the least expensive possible for the road surface in place. That would actually strengthen the author's argument. That would mean that there's no possible way to free up money for rubberized asphalt by switching to a less expensive technique for removing ice. After all, they already use the least expensive technique. As written, we could hear this answer potentially weakening. If the techniques the city uses for ice removal aren't the least expensive, then we could say, "See, mayor? The suggestion to pave with rubberized asphalt is financially feasible. We just need to free up some money by switching to less expensive ice removal techniques."

   2%