Politician: Over the next decade

Answer choices

1. A

   Unclear Impact12% picked this

   What features of the new street signs improve the readability of

   In order to answer this in a way that would weaken, we would need to think of really cool, desirable features that improve readability, so that we could argue that, "even though no one is complaining about the current signs, when they see these new ones, with the LED lettering and anti-glare glaze on the bulbs, they are going to think this was not a waste of time / money!" It would be hard for us to come with a feature that would have a common sense link of, "If street signs had feature X for enhancing readability, then people would think it worth spending money on that improvement". So it's not easy to think of an answer here that clearly weakens the argument.

   12%
2. B

   Doesn't Lend Itself to an Objection21% picked this

   Are the new street signs considerably more expensive to manufacture than the current

   If we say YES to this question, then it would strengthen the argument. But does saying NO to this weaken the argument? If this were a weaken question, would we pick an answer that said, "The new street signs are not considerably more expensive to manufacture than the current street signs were"? No, we wouldn't. It's a very weak objection: It's not a colossal waste of money. After all, the new ones are only somewhat more expensive to make than the old ones were. The author would say, "Right, but the current ones are fine. As I said, no one is complaining about them. So the entire purchase (not just the extra cost above and beyond what the originals cost) is a waste of money."

   21%
3. C

   Correct64% picked this

   What percentage of its street signs does the city replace annually in the course

   Why this is right

   We could weaken this argument by saying that, for example, 10% of the street signs are replaced annually in the course of ordinary maintenance. Over the course of a decade (10 years), that means that 100% of the street signs would be replaced anyway, even if we didn't use these new ones. We're already sending a crew out to each sign to take it down and replace it with a new sign. So it might as well be replaced with these new, more readable signs. It's not a colossal waste of time and money to replace all our current signs with these new ones, over the next decade. After all, we replace 10% of them each year no matter what, so over the next decade they're all getting replaced either way. Thus this plan doesn't represent any extra time, and the only extra money would be whatever extra we pay for these new signs vs. buying a new version of the existing signs.

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

   64%
4. D

   Doesn't Lend Itself to an Objection1% picked this

   Do any other cities plan to replace their street signs with signs designed

   If this were a weaken question, would it hurt the argument to say, "Other cities plan to replace their street signs with ones that have improved readability"? Not really. It's a very weak objection: It's not a colossal waste of money. After all, other cities are doing it. The author could say, "Right, other cities are dumb and are wasting their time and money. Also, it might be the case that in those cities people are complaining about the current street signs, unlike here."

   1%
5. E

   Doesn't Lend Itself to an Objection1% picked this

   Were experts consulted when the new street signs

   Can we weaken the argument by saying, It's not a colossal waste of money. After all, experts were consulted when the new street signs were designed. No. The author would just say, "Great, then you wasted time and money hiring these consultants, too."

   1%