Statistics reveal that more collisions

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection3% picked this

   overlooks the possibility that injuries sustained by bicyclists in accidents on roads with bicycle lanes are as serious, on average, as those sustained by

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. Can we object by saying, "Hey, author --- adding bike lanes does enhance bike safety. After all, the injuries bikers get on roads with bike lanes are on average of the same severity as those bikers get on roads without bike lanes"? No, if the injury severity is the same, then that doesn't help us argue that bike lanes enhance safety.

   3%
2. B

   Correct88% picked this

   fails to address the possibility that there are more bicyclists riding on roads with bicycle lanes than there are riding

   Why this is right

   Since this answer begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would Weaken. This idea allows us to object by saying, "Hey, author --- adding bike lanes does enhance bike safety. The reason statistics would show that more collisions occur on roads with bike lanes isn't because bike lanes aren't improving safety conditions, it's because there are more bicyclists riding on roads with bicycle lanes than there are riding on roads without such lanes."

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

   88%
3. C

   Not Assumed / Too Strong: any1% picked this

   takes for granted that any road alteration that enhances the safety of bicyclists also enhances

   Since this answer begins with takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a Necessary Assumption. The author commit himself to the view that "every single road alteration ever that enhances bikers' safety also enhances motorists' safety"? No. In addition to that being incredibly extreme, the argument never discusses improving motorists' safety at all.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   concludes that adding bicycle lanes to roads will fail to enhance the safety of bicyclists on the grounds that only some roads that

   Since this answer has the structure concludes that X on the grounds that Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the conclusion and whether Y matches the evidence. Did the author conclude, "adding bike lanes won't enhance safety of bicyclists"? Yes. Good there. Was the author's premise saying that, "only some roads with bike lanes are safe"? Nope, it was a statistical figure that said "more collisions occur on roads w/ bike lanes than on those w/o."

   2%
5. E

   Trap6% picked this

   takes statistical evidence that fails to support a conclusion concerning the safety of bicyclists as evidence that

   Bad Evidence Match Not "Unproven vs. Proven False" Since this answer has the structure takes X as evidence that Y we'll ask ourselves whether X matches the evidence and whether Y matches the conclusion. Did the author's evidence cite "statistical evidence that fails to support a conclusion"? Huh? No. The author presented statistical evidence and considered it support for his conclusion. This answer alludes to one of the 10 famous flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False.

   6%