Logical reasoning PrepTest 113 · Section 2 · Question 13

Incorrect. As we noted, Aiesha doesn't question whether the reflecting posts allow drivers to see the road's edge. Rather, she raises that they lead to behaviors that increase the risk of accidents.

Incorrect. Aiesha doesn't present any other way to reduce accidents. Instead, she focuses on showing why Adam's method likely won't lead to that reduction.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Facts

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/NA

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Adam: Reflecting posts let drivers be safer, so doing so should reduce accidents.

Aiesha: Those posts are associated with dangerous driving behaviors that cause accidents.

Answer Anticipation:
When a second speaker rebuts the first argument, you should check to see if she does so by disagreeing with the premises or assumption/logic, or if she brings up additional considerations.

Here, Aiesha doesn't question Adam's premises—she doesn't say that drivers can't see the road edges better and couldn't drive safer. Instead, she brings up more information—that what they actually do is drive faster and closer to the road edges. These correlations are relevant because those two behaviors lead to accidents, which Adam believes the reflecting posts will decrease.

Let's find an answer that states Aiesha brings up additional information that calls into question whether Adam's proposal will lead to the outcome he expects.

Answer Explanation:
Aiesha does raise a consideration—that reflecting posts lead to people driving faster and closer to the road edges, which increases the likelihood of an accident. Adam's method does facilitate safe driving—it allows people to better see the edges of a road. And he does assume that this will result in safer driving. By showing behaviors that result from his method that won't result in safer driving, Aiesha undermines his argument. This answer correctly describes her response, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Rebuttals generally call into question the premises or assumption/logic of the opposing point, or they bring up new considerations. And those additional considerations may themselves call a premise or conclusion into question, as we saw here!

Incorrect. Aiesha never questions visibility as a factor in accidents. She just raises other considerations that increase the risk of accidents, suggesting that they may lead to an overall increase.

Incorrect. Aiesha brings up unsafe driving behaviors (speeding; driving close to the edge of the road), so she's not showing how safer driving can lead to more accidents.