Charles: During recessions unemployment typically rises

Answer choices

1. A

   One Word Off1% picked this

   People who have never been employed drive no less frequently during a recession than

   If this said "drive no more frequently" then we could pick this answer. When we negate this, it says, "People who are always jobless drive less frequently during a recession than they would otherwise". That strengthens the author's conclusion that during a recession auto exhaust decreases. The correct answer, when negated, would weaken. If the negation was saying, "The permanently jobless actually drive more during a recession", that would weaken.

   1%
2. B

   Too Strong: most18% picked this

   Most air pollution is caused by automobile exhaust emitted by cars used by people

   The word most is wrong 99% or more of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption. Would it make any difference to this argument whether 51% vs. 49% of air pollution is caused by people commuting to jobs? Of course not. That's why it's not necessary for most air pollution to be caused by commuting. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

   18%
3. C

   Too Strong: most4% picked this

   Most people who are employed do not use any form of public transportation to commute

   The word most is wrong 99% of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption. Would it make any difference to this argument whether 51% vs. 49% of employed people avoid public transportation on their commute? Of course not. That's why it's not necessary for most employed people to avoid pollution to be caused by commuting. If we negate this answer and say "most employed people do use public transportation", that doesn't hurt the argument. As long as some people commute using their cars during non-recessionary times, and as long as fewer people commute using their cars during recessions, then the argument can still make sense. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

   4%
4. D

   Correct70% picked this

   During a recession, decreases in the use of cars resulting from reductions in commuting to jobs are not offset by increased use

   Why this is right

   When we negate this answer, it says that "during a recession the decrease in car use for commuting to jobs is offset by increased use of cars for other reasons" (like going on road trips or hunting for a new job or babysitting your niece). If the "savings" we're getting on auto exhaust from jobless people no longer driving their cars to work is offset (i.e. canceled out) by these people using their cars more for other reasons, then we're not getting any savings on auto exhaust overall.

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

   70%
5. E

   Irrelevant Comparison6% picked this

   During a recession, a higher proportion of people who commute in cars to their jobs lose those jobs than do people who do not

   Does the author need job losses to affect the car-commuting community more than it affects the public transportation commuting community? No, it doesn't matter which community job losses affects more. As long as job losses during a recession affect the car-commuting population by reducing the number of cars commuting to work, the author's premise makes sense. The author's conclusion is only saying that during a recession, auto exhaust will decrease. It can decrease by any amount and from any source (a big source or a small source) and the author's conclusion would still be true.

   6%