Premiums for automobile accident

Answer choices

1. A

   Unrelated to Argument1% picked this

   accepts without question that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums

   The argument has nothing to do with auto insurance premiums. The author's only premise is a correlation between red cars and higher rates of being involved in an accident. In addition to this answer choice having nothing to do with the premise or conclusion, it also doesn't seem like an objectionable thing. It's very reasonable to accept that insurance companies have the right to charge higher premiums for higher-risk clients. That's sort of a founding principle of insurance. Your rate is based on your risk level.

   1%
2. B

   Out of Scope: repair cost2% picked this

   fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to repair as cars

   Could we object to this argument by saying, "Hey, author --- the cost to repair a red car is different from that of other cars"? Nope. That has nothing to do with the author's conclusion, which is saying "let's ban red cars in order to save lives". This answer seems, like (A), to be trying to get students thinking about the insurance policies, which are totally extraneous to the author's argument. Insurance companies care about repair costs, because that's part of how they determine premiums, but this author isn't arguing anything about insurance companies or premiums at all.

   2%
3. C

   Correct67% picked this

   ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference

   Why this is right

   This suggests an Alternate Explanation for the curious fact (the correlation between red cars and accidents). It's not that red cars are inherently more dangerous and that's why they're involved in more accidents. It's that Fast & Furious show-off types who will be driving aggressively no matter what car they're driving are attracted to red cars. If the riskiest drivers like to buy sexy red cars, then red cars will be disproportionately driven by more risky drivers and thus be involved in more accidents. But it's not because the cars are red. If we banned red cars, these same aggressive drivers would be on the road getting into accidents, just in different-colored cars. This was the classic "3rd Factor" alternate explanation for a correlation.

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

   67%
4. D

   Never a Flaw4% picked this

   does not specify precisely what percentage of red cars are involved

   We never have to specify exact numbers, precise measurements, official definitions, or names of our sources. Flaw questions that ask for more details are always wrong. This is about reasoning, not details. It suffices for the logical force of the author's argument that red cars are more correlated with accidents than any other color of car.

   4%
5. E

   Too Strong: every25% picked this

   makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some

   The author definitely didn't commit herself to the extreme idea that 100% of accidents result in loss of life. The author is for sure assuming that at least some of the accidents involving red cars involve some loss of life, but the author doesn't need it to be 100% of accidents. It could be that 99% of accidents result in loss of life and her argument would make just as much sense.

   25%