Consumer advocate: There is ample

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct80% picked this

   fails to address adequately the possibility that the model of car that was stolen most often last year was the most common model of

   Why this is right

   Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- that model of car that's been #1 for car thefts the past two years is just the most common model of car"? Yes, because that would provide an Alternate Explanation for the evidence. The author thinks that the Civic is getting the "most stolen" trophy because thieves specifically want that model of car. But this answer is saying, "No, thieves are just stealing what's available." If we all have a 1% chance of having our car stolen, regardless of what model we drive, then which ever model of car is most common will be the model that is most often stolen. There might be 1000 Teslas and 100,000 Civics, and if in both cases 1% of owners will have their cars stolen, then 10 Teslas and 1,000 Civics will be stolen.

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

   80%
2. B

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to address adequately the possibility that the age of a car also greatly affects its

   Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- the age of a car also affects its chances of being stolen"? No, because the author never said that "model type is the only / the main factor that affects likelihood of being stolen". If I say, "smoking two packs of cigarettes a day greatly affects your chances of getting cancer", you can't counter that by saying, "Other things also affect your chances of getting cancer".

   1%
3. C

   Not an Alternative Explanation5% picked this

   fails to address adequately the possibility that the car model that was stolen most often last year was stolen as often as it was

   Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- that model of car that's been stolen most-often for the past tow years is stolen because it has a very high resale value"? At first that might feel like an Alternate Explanation, but since the resale value of a car is very related to the model type, this could actually still conform to the author's causal story. If you choose to drive a model of car (like say, a Toyota Prius) that has a high resale value, then you're providing car thieves with a higher incentive for stealing your car. Thus, the model of car you drive is affecting the chances that your car gets stolen. When we compare this "alternative explanation" to that in (A), this one makes it seem like "there's something special about that model of car that makes it more attractive to thieves". In (A), it was just a mathematical explanation. There wasn't something special about the Civic that made it more a more attractive model to steal. There are just way more of them on the road, so even if every car is equally likely to be stolen, the Civic is the model of car that would be stolen most often.

   5%
4. D

   Too Strong: only11% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that someone considering whether or not to steal a particular car considers only what

   Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Necessary Assumption question. Did this argument need to assume that, "the only thing thieves consider is model type"? No, that's way too strong. The author is definitely assuming that "one of the things that thieves consider is model type", but it doesn't need to be the only thing.

   11%
5. E

   Not Assumed: should override2% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that the likelihood of a car’s being stolen should override other considerations in deciding

   Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Necessary Assumption question. Did this argument need to assume that, "likelihood of getting your car stolen should override other considerations in deciding which car to buy"? No, the author isn't offering any advice about which car to buy, so she isn't making any assumptions about what we should / shouldn't do.

   2%