To accommodate the personal automobile,

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct83% picked this

   infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that it could only

   Why this is right

   Since this answer takes the form, infers from X that Y we would check to see if X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause"? Yes, somewhat. The premise doesn't actually mention geography, but when the conclusion mentions the geography of cities it's clear that we're referring to the spaced houses and parking lots > forests from the premise. The author does indicate that these big features of urban geography were the result of accommodating cars. Is the conclusion acting like the current geography of cities could only result from accommodating cars? Yes, although we might not gravitate to that wording initially. The author is assuming, "If we weren't accommodating cars, we wouldn't have this geography", which contraposes into this: this geography ? accommodating cars And that conditional means "this geography requires accommodating cars". More conversationally, this answer is saying that the author looks at the fact that the geography of cities was shaped by the causal influence of accommodating cars and infers from this that if we hadn't been accommodating cars, we wouldn't have had this geography. That assumes that there aren't other things that could have similarly caused this geography. Or to restate that, that assumes that only accommodating cars would cause this geography.

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

   83%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   infers from the idea that the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause that other facets of modern

   Since this answer takes the form, infers from X that Y we would check to see if X matches the evidence and Y matches the conclusion. Did the evidence say that "the current geography of modern cities resulted from a particular cause"? Yes, as we discuss with (A), we can live with that characterization of the evidence. Is the conclusion acting like other factors of life (non-geographical parts of modern life) were caused by the car? Nope. The conclusion is just about the geography of modern cities.

   8%
3. C

   Not an Objection7% picked this

   overlooks the fact that many technological innovations other than the personal automobile have had some effect on

   Not an Objection: also had an effect Since this has the fails to consider / overlooks the possibility prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid objection. Could it weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- many tech innovations have had some effect on the way people live"? No. The author isn't saying, "Cars affected how people live. Thus, they are uniquely evil." The author is just saying, "Cars affected the geography of cities. Thus, the geography would be different if hadn't been worried about cars." She has no problem agreeing that other tech innovations also have affected modern life. She overlooks the possibility that other technological innovations could have affected the geography of cities in ways similar to how cars did.

   7%
4. D

   Not Assumed: need large lots1% picked this

   takes for granted that shopping malls do not need large parking lots even given the use

   Since this has the takes for granted / presumes prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid assumption. Did the author need to assume that shopping malls don't need large parking lots. Would it weaken the argument to say, "Hey, author -- you know shopping malls do need large parking lots, given the use of cars?" Not at all. The author isn't ever challenging the idea that shopping malls need large parking lots in our current world. She is thinking that if we all relied on public transportation, then maybe shopping malls wouldn't need large parking lots.

   1%
5. E

   Not Assumed0% picked this

   takes for granted that people ultimately want to live without

   Not Assumed: want to give up cars Since this has the takes for granted / presumes prefix, we can ask ourselves whether this answer poses a valid assumption. Did the author need to assume that people want to live without cars? Definitely not. The author isn't assuming anything about what people want. She's just assuming things about how the world would be different if people hadn't wanted cars.

   0%