PT158 S4 Q23 ExplanationOfficial: Six months ago, the fines

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Wrong Flaw Type21% picked this

   takes a possible effect of a reduction to be a possible cause

   Confusing cause and effect means reversing the causal direction -- claiming X caused Y when actually Y caused X. The argument's timeline is straightforward and correct: fines were raised, then violations decreased. There is no reversal of the causal arrow. The actual flaw is different: the argument ignores a confounding variable (the parking garage) that could explain the same outcome. This is an alternative-cause error, not a reversed-causation error. The argument gets the temporal sequence right but fails to consider that another simultaneous change might be the real explanation. These are distinct logical errors, and this answer identifies the wrong one.

   21%
2. B

   Secondary Concern11% picked this

   takes for granted that raising fines a second time will reduce parking violations at least as much as

   This answer identifies a real but secondary issue: diminishing returns. Perhaps the first fine increase captured the "easy wins" -- the most price-sensitive violators -- and a second increase would affect fewer people. But this critique is premature. The primary flaw is more fundamental: the argument has not established that fines caused the initial decrease at all. The parking garage is an unexamined alternative explanation. Before questioning whether a second dose of medicine will work as well as the first, we should first confirm the first dose was actually medicine and not a placebo. This answer skips ahead to a secondary objection while missing the foundational problem.

   11%
3. C

   Irrelevant Objection2% picked this

   fails to take into account the financial benefits the city is now deriving from fines

   This answer introduces a cost-benefit analysis: do the revenues from fines justify the costs of enforcement? But the argument's conclusion is about effectiveness ("raise fines to reduce violations further"), not about profitability ("raise fines to make money"). The logical flaw lies in the causal reasoning -- attributing the decrease in violations to fines while ignoring the garage. Whether fines are financially worthwhile is a completely separate question from whether they actually caused the behavioral change. This answer operates in the wrong analytical framework for a flaw question about causal reasoning.

   2%
4. D

   Not Assumed4% picked this

   takes for granted that people who park their cars illegally would prefer

   This answer claims the flaw is assuming illegal parkers would prefer to park legally. But the argument's logic relies on deterrence through financial punishment, not on changing people's parking preferences. Deterrence works even when people prefer the illegal option -- they choose the legal option to avoid the fine, not because they like it better. The argument does not need to assume anything about preferences; it only needs to assume fines change behavior through the threat of cost. The actual flaw is much simpler and more fundamental: the argument ignores that the new parking garage, not the fines, might explain the reduced violations.

   4%
5. E

   Correct62% picked this

   fails to establish that the initial decrease in parking violations was not due to the availability

   Why this is right

   This is the classic alternative-cause or confounding-variable flaw. Two events occurred simultaneously: the fine increase and the garage opening. Violations decreased by 50%. The argument attributes the decrease entirely to the fine increase and recommends a second increase. But it fails to consider that the parking garage -- which provided new legal parking spaces -- could be the actual explanation. People may have stopped parking illegally because they finally had a convenient legal option, not because they feared costlier tickets. Without controlling for this alternative cause, the argument's causal attribution is unjustified, and its recommendation (raise fines again) rests on an unproven foundation.

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

   62%