More pedestrian injuries occur

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct86% picked this

   fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they

   Why this is right

   When an answer starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Yo, we added these safety features precisely because these roads are the most dangerous ones"? Yes! That's exposing the author's bad logic. The safety features are a response to these crosswalks being the worst. They aren't causing the crosswalks to be the worst. To measure their effectiveness as safety features, we would need to compare how many injuries occurred at these crosswalks before the safety features were installed vs. after.

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

   86%
2. B

   Trap6% picked this

   takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a

   Bad Evidence Match Not a Good Objection When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "if a safety feature fails to reduce the number of injuries, then it is a waste of taxpayer money"? We judge conditional assumptions by thinking, "Does the trigger match the evidence? Does the outcome match the conclusion or something the author assumed en route to the conclusion?" Was there a premise that said, "these safety features failed to reduce the number of injuries at these crosswalks"? No. There is no before / after comparison. For all we know, these safety features did reduce the number of injuries. The author was assuming that, "if a safety feature is associated with the worst examples of a problem, then it's a waste of taxpayer money", because the premise is saying there's a correlation between these safety features being present and the problem of pedestrian injuries being at its worst. Finally, even though the author never stated a premise about these safety measures failing to reduce number of injuries, it does still feel fair to say that this author would agree that "if the safety features aren't reducing injuries (which was their objective), then it's a waste of money". But wouldn't we also agree with that? Are we going to object to this author by saying, "Even though the safety measures don't reduce injuries, they're not a waste of money. After all, the flashing lights are aesthetically pleasing, so the money has been spent beautifying the intersection." That seems like a very unlikely objection.

   6%
3. C

   Out of Scope: less expensive4% picked this

   presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively

   When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "there are cheaper options that would reduce injuries as much as striping and flashing lights"? No, the argument never discusses or insinuates the existence of any other safety options. If we negated this answer and said, "there are no cheaper options that could achieve the same injury reduction", that wouldn't hurt the argument at all. The author would still say, "Even if striping and flashing lights are our best option, they still are not a good option. After all, more injuries occur at intersections that have these features than at those that don't."

   4%
4. D

   Too Strong: no other features3% picked this

   takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no

   When an answer starts with takes for granted / presumes, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows is a necessary assumption. Is the author assuming that, "none of these crosswalks with striping and flashing lights have any other safety features"? No. Just because the author is citing a statistic comparing crosswalks that have both striping and flashing lights to those that don't doesn't mean she's assuming that any intersection with striping and flashing lights only has those safety features. If some intersections with striping and flashing lights also had a talking "Don't Walk" sign, that wouldn't hurt the argument at all.

   3%
5. E

   Not an Objection1% picked this

   fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the

   When an answer starts with fails to consider / ignores the possibility, then we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we hurt this argument by saying, "Hey, author -- when a pedestrians gets hit by a car, it usually hurts the pedestrian more than the passengers in the car"? Definitely not. That's a pretty obvious statement about the world, and it doesn't intrude on the author's logic at all.

   1%