Singletary: We of Citizens for

Answer choices

1. A

   Out Of Scope: “misunderstands”25% picked this

   It is cited as evidence for the claim that the city misunderstands the steps necessary

   Close, but the author isn’t saying the city misunderstands what to do. Instead, she’s more cynically concluding that the city knows better but they’re just concerned with appearing like they’re doing something by mandating helmets.

   25%
2. B

   Correct62% picked this

   It is used as partial support for a claim about the motivation

   Why this is right

   It is part of the evidence/support. The conclusion in the last sentence is indeed about the motivation/concern of the city. “Partial Support” is just a phrase they use when there’s more than one Premise.

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

   62%
3. C

   Too Strong3% picked this

   It is offered as evidence of the total ineffectiveness of the

   Too Strong: “total ineffectiveness” / Bad Conclusion Match This claim is part of the evidence, but the conclusion in the last sentence says nothing about the total ineffectiveness of the helmet law.

   3%
4. D

   Out Of Scope: "will take”5% picked this

   It is offered as an example of further measures the city will take to

   Almost, but it’s offered as an example of a measure the city should take or would take, if it were genuinely concerned with bike safety. This answer says that driver’s ed is being brought up as an actual thing the city plans to do now that the helmet law is done.

   5%
5. E

   Out Of Scope: “its public image”5% picked this

   It is presented as an illustration of the city's overriding interest in

   Close, but the illustration of the city’s interest in public image (appearance of safety) is the helmet law. The passage of the ordinance reveals that the city has an overriding interest in public image. The fact that the city is eschewing either of the legit methods to increase bike safety (bike lanes / driver’s education) in favor of doing this helmet law is illustrating that the city cares more about the appearance of safety than actual safety. But is “the appearance of safety” the same as “the city’s public image”? That’s a drift. And the statement that mentions driver’s education doesn’t, by itself, illustrate the city’s real motives. It’s only when you package that statement together with other claims that the author can claim where the city’s overriding interests lie.

   5%