If a person chooses to walk

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: variety of ways2% picked this

   Cutting down on pollution can be achieved in a variety

   This is a great example of an answer that seems appealing because obviously it's a true statement in the world. But did this author discuss a variety of ways to reduce pollution? No, he only discussed walking rather than driving as one way. If we negated this answer and said, "There aren't a variety of ways to cut down on pollution. Walking instead of driving is the only way", that would not weaken the argument.

   2%
2. B

   Out of Scope: public transportation6% picked this

   Taking public transportation rather than driving is not

   Again, this has appeal because it's true in the real world. But the author never discussed public transportation at all. This answer is trying to bait people into using their own value system to hear something like, "If this dude is suggesting walking rather than driving, then he must be thinking of situations where you couldn't take public transportation, because obviously public transportation is the better option, which offers a good compromise of environmental efficiency and not making you walk 5 miles to work." If we negated this answer, we'd get, "taking public transportation is always feasible". That's not an objection. The author isn't saying "we should walk instead of driving", which would allow us to argue "isn't public transportation, which is always feasible, a better option?" The author is just descriptively predicting something that would be true in an alternate universe. "IF we lived in a world where people walked whenever feasible, that would be a world where pollution is greatly reduced". I could defend a conclusion, "IF we had human residential colonies on Mars, there would be way less structural racism in those communities". That doesn't mean I think we should have human colonies on Mars.

   6%
3. C

   Too Strong: the only18% picked this

   Walking is the only feasible alternative to driving that results in a

   This is the classic trap answer move of trying to get students to think that "the only [thing mentioned]" is therefore "the only [thing]". The only alternative to driving mentioned was walking, but that doesn't mean the author thinks that walking is the only alternative. When I say, "Black lives matter", the only lives that I mentioned are black ones, but that doesn't mean I think that only black lives matter.

   18%
4. D

   Out of Scope: never drive2% picked this

   There are people who never drive but who

   The author's argument is about switching from a current world in which people are driving instead of walking, into a hypothetical world, where people are walking instead of driving more often (when feasible). People who never drive are unaffected by this switch, so they are beyond the scope of the argument, unless this hypothetical world turned them into drivers. This could be a correct answer: "People who currently never drive would not be encouraged to start driving if people who currently drive switch to walking more."

   2%
5. E

   Correct73% picked this

   People sometimes drive when it is feasible to

   Why this is right

   This answer is confusing but the weak language (sometimes) is very lovable on Necessary Assumption. When we negate it, it's saying "people currently never drive if it's feasible to walk". That would be a huge objection! Why? If we were transported to the author's hypothetical world, where people never drive when it's feasible for them to walk, then we would be in .... the .. exact .. same world? There would apparently be no reduction in pollution, for the hypothetical world the conclusion is talking about. After all, we already live in that world. As an analogy, say that our conclusion were saying, "If Jimmy follows Patrick's LSAT Method, his score will greatly increase". This would be assuming that "Jimmy's score is not already a 180". In order for Patrick's Method to make an improvement, there has to be room for improvement. In order for this policy of "walk whenever feasible" to make a difference, there has to be room for improvement. It has to be the case that people have not already perfect this part of their lives. It has to be true that they currently sometimes drive when it's feasible for them to walk instead.

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

   73%