Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 4 · Question 13

Incorrect. The argument is statistical, dealing with the population as a whole, so a few people who don't slow down because of speed limits wouldn't affect the overall point.

Incorrect. The conclusion is limited to the effects of lowering the speed limit on safety and the environment, so other benefits are out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, this possibility aligns with the argument—more cars on the road at any given time means more cars polluting and more cars able to get into an accident.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Lowering speed limits leads to slower cars, leads to more time to make exhaust and get into accidents. So lowering the speed limit doesn't help safety or the environment.

Answer Anticipation:
Similar to the last question, this answer also has an anti-causal conclusion. This argument brings up a change that one might expect would lead to a given outcome (lowering speed limits; improving safety/the environment), but in actuality it doesn't. However, unlike most arguments that fall into this pattern, the argument here is speculative—it doesn't look at a situation where the change was made and the numbers didn't end up where they were expected to. Rather, it predicts what will happen.

Why does it predict that lowering the speed limit won't lower exhaust or increase safety? Because slower cars spend more time on the road, thus having more time to exhaust and get into accidents. However, that's treating time spent on the road as the determinative factor in safety and environmental issues. It's possible that the amount of time spent on the road is only one factor, or is even a non-factor, with another factor determining safety or environmental impact.

For instance, it could be that average speed is much more important in determining accident rates than time spent on the road. It could also be that time spent on the road is less important to the overall amount of pollution a car exhausts than is engine efficiency—which may be affected by speed.

Let's find any answer that discusses the assumption here that time spent on the road is one of the most important factors in determining safety/pollution.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects one of the assumptions of the author. She states that cars will take longer to get to their destinations, thus there will be no environmental benefit. That assumes time spent on the road determines the environmental impact of a trip, when it could be that engine efficiency is more important, and engines are more efficient at lower speeds.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument uses one metric to show another, question whether it's the most important metric/factor. Here, time spent on the road was used to draw a conclusion about overall safety and pollution rates, but that's an indirect measurement!

Incorrect. The argument assumes that time spent on the road increases the risk of collision, but it doesn't establish that as a necessary condition for that to happen. If driving drunk for any distance, for example, also runs a high risk of collision, the argument isn't negatively affected.