PT142 · S2 · Q21 A government study indicates

Bad Conclusion Match No Connection To Premise This gives us a rule that says High speed roadway → set uniform national limit We need a rule that says you should set a limit. This is a rule that allows you to conclude (you can only conclude right sides of rules) that you shouldn't set a limit.

The author does want a traffic law, which would apply to high-speed roadways, to apply uniformly across the nation. Does this rule help our author prove her conclusion that we should make straight, level highways 75mph nationwide? This rule would only be useful to our author if there was currently a 75mph high-speed roadway somewhere in the nation. According to this rule, if we have a 75mph traffic law applying to a high-speed roadway somewhere, then we should have that 75mph nationwide for all high-speed roadways. But the evidence doesn't mention any existing 75mph high-speed roadways, so this rule doesn't necessarily get triggered by anything. To put it another way, if you go buy this rule, then you should make whatever the speed limit is gonna be for high-speed roadways a national standard. But this rule doesn't prefer 75mph over 60mph or any other speed. If we made high-speed roadways uniformly 60mph, we'd still be following this rule. Because this answer doesn't connect to the premise, it doesn't involve the 75mph rate in any way.

We need a rule that says such-and-such applies → should set national limit This rule says should set national limit → blah-blah-blah As soon as we see that the Trigger is our Conclusion, we're out. You can only conclude what's on the right side of the arrow.

We need a rule that helps us proactively say we should set this nationwide 75mph limit. This is a rule that would allow you criticize a current law as "not good". It wouldn't allow you to prove that you "should" enact a 75mph nationwide law. We also have not been told that the existing speed limit is "long-standing".