Columnist: The failure of bicyclists

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   presumes, without providing justification, that motorists are a factor in less than half of the

   The conclusion is only saying that bikers are at least partially responsible, so there's still room in the author's words for believing that she would also consider motorists a factor in more than half of the accidents. More than one cause can be a factor. More than one entity can be a culpable party.

   6%
2. B

   Bad Premise Match22% picked this

   improperly infers the presence of a causal connection on the basis

   Does the conclusion claim some causal connection? Yes, it says bikers are at least partially "responsible". Is the evidence a correlation? No, it's two different statistics that actually involve causality themselves. A correlation would sound like "bikers who disobey traffic regulations are more likely than those who don't to be involved in an accident". They suggest causality but they don't outright say it or imply it. Meanwhile the author's evidence says that "disobeying traffic regulations is a causal factor in more than 25% of accidents".

   22%
3. C

   Correct72% picked this

   fails to consider the possibility that more than one factor may contribute to

   Why this is right

   Can we object to the author's argument by pointing out that accidents can have more than one causal factor? Yes, we can make the argument that 27 out of 100 accidents had both rule-breaking and bad equipment as two of their causal factors. That sort of scenario shows that the bikers were at least partially responsible in 27% of cases, not in over 50% of cases as the author has concluded.

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

   72%
4. D

   Not a Flaw0% picked this

   fails to provide the source of the figures

   When we're evaluating flawed reasoning, we're saying, "EVEN IF we accept your background facts, you still haven't proven your conclusion." This answer is acting like we shouldn't accept the background facts. If the author had provided the source of the figures, would that have convinced us whether those figures were accurate or not? No, we would still need to know more about the source and about these figures in order to verify their accuracy. Flaw questions aren't about fact-checking any data presented in the premises. We grant the author the truth of that data but still find a way to argue that their conclusion isn't something we can confidently infer.

   0%
5. E

   Out of Scope: "severity"0% picked this

   fails to consider that the severity of injuries to bicyclists from traffic accidents

   We debate the truth value of the Conclusion. The conclusion is a statistical claim about whether bikers are a causal factor in more than 50% of accidents. Our objections can only be relevant if they help us decide whether bikers are a causal factor in more than 50% or less than 50% of accidents. The relative "severity" of an accident doesn't matter. The stat we're evaluating is simply, "whether or not the biker was at least partially responsible" . It doesn't even matter how responsible they were. If it was more than zero, then it counts towards the author's conclusion.

   0%