Reducing speed limits neither saves lives

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore

   Not only would the claim "some (at least one) motorists completely ignore speed limits" be far too weak to be a good objection, it's also a strengthener in this case. The author is saying that reducing speed limits won't have these two effects. If people don't even pay attention to the speed limit, then reducing it probably won't have an effect.

   3%
2. B

   Out of Scope14% picked this

   ignores the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental

   We can only hurt the argument by countering its conclusion, which is specifically about saving lives and protecting the environment. So any objection we raise needs to help us argue that reducing the speed limit could save lives or could protect the environment.

   14%
3. C

   Not an Objection5% picked this

   fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the

   When a Flaw answer choices starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility we can ask ourselves this, "(assuming the author really did fail to address this issue), would this idea weaken?" Would it hurt the author's argument if we said, "reducing speed limits would increase the number of cars on the road"? No that would seemingly strengthen. The author would say that "more cars = more chances for someone to get into an accident and more things spewing exhaust into the air".

   5%
4. D

   Correct59% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount

   Why this is right

   When a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted / fails to establish we can ask ourselves, "Did the author need to assume this?" The author seems to think, "if car X spends more time spewing exhaust than car Y does, then car X is worse for the environment". So, yes, the author is assuming that time spent on the road is the #1 (if not the only) thing we need to consider. If we negate this assumption, would it become an objection? Negation: total emissions from a car for a given trip are primarily determined by something other than the amount of time the trip takes. Yes, that would be an objection. That would be like our objection that when you go 70 mph, you're working your engine much harder than when it's at 55 mph, and so you get worse fuel economy and potentially spew more total exhaust. If we were thinking, "wait this only weakens part of the conclusion; it doesn't say anything about the saving-lives part", you don't have to weaken both parts of a 2-part claim to weaken the argument. If I conclude, "Thus Sally will be at the party and she will eat that strawberry cake", I can hurt the argument by arguing that Sally won't be at the party, by saying she won't eat the strawberry cake, or both.

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

   59%
5. E

   Too Strong19% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot

   Again, because of the presumes opening, we can ask ourselves whether the author needed to assume that "drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road". Hmm, that's really strong. Did the author really need to assume that "if you don't spend a lot of time on the road, you never run a significant risk of collision"? No, that's way too extreme. Our author might believe that an 80 year old driver with cataracts and worn out brakes runs a significant risk of collision, even if he only drives to Trader Joe's once every two weeks. Our author was assuming that "time spent on the road is a more important risk factor for fatal collision than how fast the driver is going", but nothing as black and white as this answer.

   19%