In a car accident, air bags

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: any / will probably5% picked this

   assumes, without providing justification, that any car with air bags will probably become involved

   The author is only thinking that cars with air bags have a higher risk than do cars without. The risk could be 11% vs. 8%. This answer is saying the author must be assuming that over 50% of cars with air bags will eventually be involved in an accident.

   5%
2. B

   Not an Objection22% picked this

   denies the possibility that cars without air bags have other safety features that reduce the risk of serious injury at least as

   Since this answer stars with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether it would, if true, be a weakening idea. But this idea would strengthen. The author is arguing that cars without air bags are at least as safe as cars with air bags, and saying "cars without air bags have other safety features that boost their safety as much as an air bag boosts the safety of a car it's in".

   22%
3. C

   Not an Objection4% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that some accidents involve both cars with air bags and cars

   Again, because of overlooks the possibility, we can ask, "Would this weaken?" But saying "at least one accident has involved a car with air bags and a car without air bags" does absolute nothing to attack this author. The author was never assuming that accidents transpire exclusively between two cars with air bags or between two cars without air bags.

   4%
4. D

   Correct66% picked this

   assumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of an accident’s occurring should weigh at least as heavily as the seriousness of any resulting

   Why this is right

   The author acknowledges in her first sentence that air bags greatly reduce the risk of serious injury. Then she presents a statistic that makes it seem like driving a car with an air bag makes you more likely to be involved in an accident. So in one sense, air bags makes you safer (reduced risk of serious injury). In one sense, in the author's mind, air bags make you less safe (higher likelihood of being in an accident). For the author to conclude that overall cars with air bags are no safer than cars without, she has to assume that extra safety air bags provide is annulled (offset, if not eclipsed) by the extra risk air bags present. That's what this answer is expressing. The author was Weighing Tradeoffs and needs to assume that the "downside" of air bags (greater risk of being involved in accident) weighs as least as heavily as the "upside" (reduced risk of serious injury). If we negated this answer, it would be saying that the risk of getting into an accident weighs less heavily than does the risk of serious injury in an accident. That negation would allow someone to argue that cars with air bags are safer overall. Since the negation would badly weaken, we can tell that this idea is an assumption the author is making.

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

   66%
5. E

   Too Strong: all3% picked this

   takes for granted that all accidents would cause air bags to

   Because this answer begins with takes for granted / presumes / assumes, we ask ourselves whether the author needed to assume this idea. The author doesn't need to believe the crazy-extreme position that airbags deploy in 100% of accidents. If we negated this and said, "Hey, author -- airbags only deploy in 99% of accidents", that wouldn't hurt her argument in the slightest.

   3%