Eva’s argument depends on the assumption

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no breakdowns22% picked this

   on “smart highways” there would not be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently

   The author is fine believing that cars will still break down. She is just thinking that when they break down, the smart highway will warn cars to take an alternate route, and so the broken-down-car in the middle of the highway won't cause as big a traffic build up as before.

   22%
2. B

   Too Strong: assure a free flow10% picked this

   traffic lights, if coordinated by the system, would assure a free

   The author is expecting improvements, not perfection. She doesn't need to assume that coordinated traffic lights would 100% of the time assure a free flow of traffic.

   10%
3. C

   Correct63% picked this

   traffic flow in and around cities is not now so congested that significant

   Why this is right

   This is basically saying the author assumes that "improvement is possible". Sure, she definitely is assuming that. Whenever Necessary Assumption answers are ruling out an idea with the word not, we are attracted. We want to slow down, negate that "not", and figure out if the answer becomes an objection (if it does, it's the correct answer). Does it hurt the author's argument to say that "traffic is now so congested that significant improvement is impossible"? Yes. Technically the conclusion only promised improved traffic flow, not significantly improved traffic flow, so on that level it doesn't weaken. But when you think about the fact that the author is also promising a change to drivers' tempers, that wouldn't happen with only insignificant improvement in traffic flow. And given that her ultimate conclusion is that a "smart highway" system should be installed, it weakens her argument if we're saying that "you think we should spend a lot of time and money developing a system that only offers insignificant improvement?" (whoever at LSAC wrote this question probably lived in Los Angeles at some point. The traffic in LA is awful because way more people live here than should. When traffic occurs in one place, we all try to bail to the same alternate routes, and those also get choked up. There are just certain times of day and parts of the town where there is no way to avoid traffic.)

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

   63%
4. D

   Out of Scope: varying equipment3% picked this

   the type of equipment used in “smart highway” systems would vary from one

   It's not clear why the author would need to assume that different cities use different equipment. Would it hurt her argument if different cities used the same type of equipment? No, if anything that sounds efficient and standardized.

   3%
5. E

   Weakens1% picked this

   older vehicles could not be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a

   This also has a ruling-out "not", but when we negate this answer, it actually helps the argument: older vehicles could also be fitted with equipment to receive signals sent by a "smart highway" system. The answer as written actually weakens, because it's saying that the older cars on the road wouldn't hear these smart-highway updates and so wouldn't know what to avoid or how to avoid it.

   1%