PrepTest 133

Incorrect. There's nothing wrong with using someone's own evidence against them, so this answer doesn't describe a flaw.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't overlook this possibility—it considers the fatality rate of cars driving on roads with both higher and lower speed limits, which includes the possibility that there are fatalities at higher speeds/speed limits.

Incorrect. The argument is about the effect on fatality rates of different speed limits, not changing speed limits to reflect people's preferences, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point - Areas with lower speed limits have lower fatality rates than other places with higher speed limits, so speed limits should be lowered
Letter - Those rates are increasing in areas with lower speed limits, so the evidence actually promotes raising the speed limit

Answer Anticipation:
The opposing point bases itself in a comparison between areas with lower speed limits and areas with higher speed limits, showing that the former has lower accident fatality rates.

The rebuttal doesn't bring up a comparison between the lower and higher speed limit areas—it discusses a change in the rates of the fatalities in the former. Without knowing how that compares to the trend in the latter, it doesn't serve as a rebuttal! If the fatality rates in other areas are also going up, then the original argument stands. If the fatality rates are staying the same or going down in those areas with the higher speed limits, then the Letter's rebuttal holds more weight. Let's find an answer that highlights this incomplete comparison.

Answer Explanation:
This answer reflects the incomplete comparison that the argument relies on. The important metric is the relative fatality rate for areas with lower and higher speed limits. While an increase in the fatality rate in areas with lower speed limits is relevant, without comparing it to the areas with a higher speed limit, there's no way to know if the relevant comparison is moving in the direction that helps the argument. Since the argument fails to consider that the relative fatality rate could actually be moving in a direction of the lower speed limit roads being safer (despite an absolute increase in fatality rates), the argument is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
In general, when an argument relies on a comparison (which the opposing point here does), then a rebuttal will have to address that comparison—not just one side of it. And beyond this rebuttal structure, arguments that crucially rely on comparisons generally have answers that talk about comparisons.

Incorrect. It does—the fatality rate on roads with lower speed limits is increasing.