PT151 · S4 · Q12 If future improvements to computer

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.

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.

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.

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.