Railroads rely increasingly on automation

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct74% picked this

   The volume of freight shipped by rail can be expected

   Why this is right

   This is the main conclusion — the claim that every other statement in the argument is designed to support. The automation premise leads to fewer workers, which leads to lower costs, which — combined with trucking's inability to match those savings — supports this prediction about growing rail freight volume. This claim sits at the top of the reasoning chain: it receives support from everything else and provides support to nothing further. You can confirm this by checking each other statement's role. "Railroads rely on automation" is a premise. "Fewer workers are needed" is supported by the automation premise and supports the cost claim — making it an intermediate conclusion. "Operating costs have been reduced" is another intermediate conclusion. "Trucking has no comparable cost reduction" is a premise. All of these funnel upward to support this single prediction. That is the hallmark of a main conclusion.

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

   74%
2. B

   Intermediate Conclusion5% picked this

   Increasing reliance on automation means that fewer railroad workers

   "Fewer railroad workers are needed" is an intermediate conclusion in the argument's chain. It is supported by the premise about automation (railroads relying on automated technology means fewer workers) and in turn supports the claim about reduced operating costs. Because it both receives and gives support, it cannot be the main conclusion. The main conclusion is the claim at the very top of the chain — the prediction about freight volume growth — which this statement helps prove but does not restate.

   5%
3. C

   Premise2% picked this

   No reduction in operating costs is predicted for the

   "No reduction in operating costs is predicted for trucking" is a premise — a factual claim offered to support the conclusion. It provides the competitive context: rail has lower costs, and trucking cannot match them. Combined with the cost reduction from automation, this premise supports the main conclusion that rail freight volume will grow. But a premise supports other claims; it is not the claim being supported by everything else. The main conclusion is the freight growth prediction, which this premise helps prove.

   2%
4. D

   Intermediate Conclusion12% picked this

   Operating costs for railroads have been reduced as a result of increased

   "Operating costs have been reduced as a result of automation" is an intermediate conclusion. It is supported by the chain of premises about automation and fewer workers, and it in turn supports the main conclusion about growing freight volume. Because it both receives support and provides support, it occupies a middle position in the argument — not the top. The main conclusion is the prediction about freight growth, which is what the cost reduction claim helps prove.

   12%
5. E

   Premise7% picked this

   The chief competitor of railway shipping is shipping

   "The chief competitor of rail freight is shipping by truck" is a background premise. It identifies the competitive landscape so that the argument can make its point about rail's cost advantage. This factual claim supports the reasoning chain — it is not what the reasoning chain is designed to prove. The argument uses this fact about the competitive landscape to build toward its main conclusion about growing rail freight volume. A premise is the foundation, not the destination.

   7%