Gas station owner: Increased fuel efficiency

Answer choices

1. A

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: impossible11% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that it would be impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous

   This answer is somewhat tempting because it does feel like the author is "stuck" thinking that smaller cars are more dangerous. But is she really assuming that it's impossible to reduce the likelihood of dangerous accidents for small cars? If we negated this assumption and said, "It's possible to reduce the likelihood dangerous accidents for small cars", the author's argument wouldn't really be hurt. She would say, "Sure. I know it's possible to make any car somewhat safer. But the fact will still remain that smaller cars, in virtue of being smaller, will always provide less protection for their occupants than bigger cars will." Or maybe she'd say, "Sure, you can make smaller cars safer by building their frames out of stronger, heavier materials, but then they won't be more fuel efficient." Overall, we want to be very nervous about accusing authors of assuming extreme ideas, and it's pretty crazy-town to say someone believes that it's impossible to make smaller cars somewhat safer.

   11%
2. B

   Correct80% picked this

   concludes, on the basis of the claim that one means to an end is unacceptable, that the end

   Why this is right

   This has the form, concludes, on the basis of X, that Y so we want to check whether Y matches the Conclusion and X matches the evidence. Did the author conclude "that an end should not be pursued"? Yes, he concluded that manufacturers should not seek to increase fuel efficiency. That is a goal, an end. Did the evidence say that "one means to achieving increased fuel efficiency is unacceptable"? Yes, it conveyed the idea that trying to achieve increased fuel efficiency via smaller cars is unacceptable. So the answer matches the reasoning. Is this objectionable reasoning? Sure. Just because one way to achieve X isn't acceptable doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue X. Even if we accept that making cars smaller isn't an acceptable way to achieve greater fuel efficiency (because it increases the safety risk to occupants of the car), that's no reason to totally give up on trying to increase fuel efficiency. Maybe it can be done a different way.

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

   80%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   draws a conclusion about what should be done from premises all of which are about

   This answer has the form draws a conclusion about X from premises all of which are about Y so we should ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and Y matches the evidence. Is the conclusion about "what should be done"? Kind of. It's technically saying that something should not be done, but it seems like we could still interpret that as a conclusion about what should be done. Are the premises all about factual matters only? No. The final premise before the conclusion is a value judgment, not a fact: greater fuel efficiency is not worth the added risk to human lives.

   1%
4. D

   Not Circular2% picked this

   presupposes the truth of what it sets out

   This answer alludes to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which a premise restates the conclusion or assumes it to be true. There's no premise in this argument that requires the conclusion to be true. Answers describing Circular Reasoning are almost always wrong.

   2%
5. E

   Trap6% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: the only way The author seems to be assuming that "making cars smaller" is the only way to increase fuel efficiency. But she hasn't said anything that makes it seem like she thinks that increasing fuel efficiency is the only way to reduce air pollution.

   6%