Principle: If the burden

Answer choices

1. A

   No Impact1% picked this

   Individuals with low incomes are more likely to use public transportation and are less likely to drive cars than

   If people with low incomes are more likely to use public transportation, then it doesn't seem like reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent will affect them one way or the other. Rich people with cars would potentially be burdened by the corrosive effects of the rock salt, whereas the poorer people would just keep hopping on the bus or the train, and who cares whether the bus you're riding is being corroded by rock salt? The city will just swap it out with a new bus, if it gets too corroded.

   1%
2. B

   Unclear Impact22% picked this

   Road maintenance is primarily funded by local sales taxes, which disproportionately burden people

   This is very attractive, since it matches our trigger, "disproportionately burden low incomes". Do we know that reintroducing rock salt as a de-icing agent will be a change that results in higher road maintenance costs? No -- in fact salt is probably the cheaper option. We got rid of it because it was corroding stuff, but it may be cheaper than whatever alternative de-icing agent we've been using (we may have had to pay more for some substance with a more sophisticated chemistry that is good at breaking down ice but doesn't corrode cars). Even if we knew road maintenance costs were going up when we reintroduce rock salt, do we know if it would change local sales taxes? We don't. Road maintenance is primarily funded by local sales taxes, but we can't assume that reintroducing rock salt will boost the road maintenance budget so much that local sales taxes also go up.

   22%
3. C

   Unclear Impact2% picked this

   Cars now cost twice what they did when rock salt was last used as a

   It's hard to know whether the doubling in the cost of cars means that they are actually more expensive in today's dollars. If we stopped using salt in the 1980s and are now bringing it back, then it's an unremarkable claim to say that cars cost twice as much. That's just inflation. If we read this answer as "because cars have gotten so pricy, only wealthier people can afford them", then it would have the opposite effect of what we want. It would end up making this answer have the same logical effect as (A) ... the people with lower incomes can't afford these pricy new cars, so they take the bus instead. Thus, they're not really affected by the decision to start using salt again.

   2%
4. D

   Correct74% picked this

   People with low incomes are more likely to purchase older vehicles than are people

   Why this is right

   This points to a difference between higher / lower incomes: lower incomes = older cars higher incomes = newer cars Do we care whether people are driving older vs. newer cars? Yes, maybe. Older cars were corroded by rock salt. Newer cars are better protected from salt's corrosive properties. So reintroducing rock salt would be more likely to burden people with lower incomes, who have older cars that can be corroded by that salt.

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

   74%
5. E

   Opposite1% picked this

   Among drivers, those with low incomes are less likely than those with higher incomes to use roads that have

   This points to a difference that has a relationship to the plan to reintroduce rock salt. But according to this answer, the rock salt would be more likely to affect those with higher incomes, since they more often use roads that will be treated with de-icing agents.

   1%