Railroad spokesperson: Of course it is

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: wishes of taxpayers3% picked this

   Taxpayers do not wish to have their taxes raised to subsidize

   This argument is only about trying to ascertain whether the quality of service has been okay, and whether an increase in number of passengers is a sign that quality of service has been okay. The author didn't discuss, and doesn't need to commit to any position, on whether taxpayers wish to have their taxes raised. If we negated this and said, "Hey, author -- taxpayers do wish to have their taxes raised to subsidize the railroads", that wouldn't be any sort of objection that lets us argue "quality of service has not been satisfactory".

   3%
2. B

   Correct71% picked this

   Some people refuse to travel by train if they are dissatisfied with the

   Why this is right

   This answer is written in lovably weak "some" language. That means that if we negate it, we'll get a powerful idea that might be a strong objection. It currently says, "There's at least one person who would refuse to travel by train if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service". If we negate (i.e. contradict) that answer, it will say, "There are zero people who would refuse to travel by train if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service". So the negation is saying, "There is no person who would stop traveling by train just because they were dissatisfied by the quality of service." Does that weaken? Sure! The author thinks that the number of passengers riding is an indication of quality of service. But, according to this negation, passengers would continue to travel by train even if they were dissatisfied with the quality of service. Thus, pointing to whether the number of passengers has gone down, gone up, or held steady is irrelevant to ascertaining whether there is satisfactory quality of service. Any time we demonstrate that the author's lone premise is essentially irrelevant to the conclusion being drawn on its behalf, we've badly weakened the argument. If a lawyer hasn't presented any relevant evidence, then she has no case! If the negation weakens, then it's the correct answer.

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

   71%
3. C

   Too Strong: must have improved12% picked this

   The quality of service on the trains must have improved in spite

   This author is trying to convince us that we have succeeded in the difficult task of maintaining quality of service, in spite of reduced subsidies. She is only trying to prove that we still have satisfactory service. She doesn't need to believe our service has improved. If we negate this and say, "Yo, author -- the quality has not improved since the subsidy reductions", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. She would just say, "I never said it had improved. Sure there are more passengers than before, but I never said that's an indication that quality had improved. I just said that's an indication that quality is satisfactory."

   12%
4. D

   Too Strong: impossible Opposite6% picked this

   It is impossible to reduce subsidies to the railroad network without some effect on the

   The author seems to be making the opposite argument. She acknowledges that it's difficult to reduce subsidies while maintaining quality, but she doesn't say it's impossible. And her argument is suggesting that this railroad has managed to maintain quality in spite of reduced subsidies.

   6%
5. E

   Out of Scope: revenue offset subsidy9% picked this

   The increase in the number of passengers will increase revenue sufficiently to offset

   The author isn't making any sort of dollars and cents argument that a higher amount of revenue will now replace the money we used to get from higher subsidies. If we negated this and said, "Sorry, author -- the new revenue isn't going to fully make up for the subsidy reductions", that wouldn't weaken at all. She would say, "I never said it would. All I'm saying is that our quality of service has evidently been satisfactory."

   9%