If future improvements to computer

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct58% picked this

   Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance

   Why this is right

   This rules out an objection. One of the ways to argue against the author is to say, "Sure, computer tests are less costly, but ... they only tell you about the effectiveness of auto safety features. When we do actual tests we get safety feature data, but we also get lots of other types of data that computer tests don't provide."

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

   58%
2. B

   No Impact20% picked this

   It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of

   This answer choice makes it seem like computer tests will one day surpass actual tests in amount reliable info, but this argument is specifically about the point at which they're providing equal reliable info. This answer choice is also aimed at the Trigger of the conclusion. If a conclusion is phrased conditionally, as this one was, we're never worried about the Trigger. On a strengthen question, we're not trying to prove the trigger will happen. On a weaken question, we're not trying to prove the trigger won't happen. You accept the trigger (the "if" condition). It's a given, in this argument, that we're talking about a hypothetical world in which computer tests provide as much reliable info as actual tests.

   20%
3. C

   Untriggered Conditional8% picked this

   If computer simulations will soon be able to provide more information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, automobile manufacturers will soon

   This is a conditional answer, but we have no reason to think the trigger gets triggered, so it doesn't go anywhere. We're playing along with the conditional trigger of the conclusion -- we're in a world where simulations provide as much info as actual tests, in regards to safety. Is that a world that happens soon? We don't know. Is that a world where you get more info about the effectiveness of safety features? No. Our hypothetical world just says that they provide as much info. If we interpret this trigger as "providing more information than simulations used to provide", that's probably the case in our hypothetical world. But since the outcome is saying that car makers could make safer cars, it sounds more like the first interpretation, where simulations provide more info than actual tests do. After all, the second interpretation (where simulations provide as much info as actual tests, but provide more info than simulations previously did) wouldn't enhance what car makers already know about safety features from actual tests, so how could it possibly lead to safer cars? So again, this answer goes nowhere because our hypothetical world doesn't establish the trigger of this answer, so we don't get to think about the impact of the outcome of this answer.

   8%
4. D

   No Impact / No Distinction5% picked this

   The cost per automobile of testing and designing safety features is decreasing and will continue to decrease

   This gives a status quo idea "something that's been happening will continue to happen", and it doesn't differentiate between computer tests and actual tests at all.

   5%
5. E

   No Impact9% picked this

   For years, the aviation industry has been successfully using computer simulations of airplane crashes to test the effectiveness of

   If we were trying to be convinced that simulations could be as effective as actual crash tests at testing safety, then this answer would strengthen somewhat (even if it is about a different industry, it would provide some plausibility to the idea that simulations can be a successful way of testing safety). But since we're dealing with a conditional conclusion, we're already playing along with the trigger idea of being in a world where simulations provide as much safety information as actual tests. So we don't need to be convinced that's true. We're assuming it's true, for the sake of argument, because we're analyzing a conditional conclusion. When the conclusion is saying, "If X happens, then Y will happen", we can't strengthen the argument by trying to make it more likely that X will happen (nor can we weaken by making it seem like X won't happen). We have to just play along with the trigger, and judge whether the outcome would hold. This answer doesn't do anything to enhance our belief that in a world where simulations are as effective as actual tests, they will do more simulations and fewer actual tests.

   9%