PrepTest 133

Incorrect. The argument isn't a debate between the engineer or Acme being responsible—they're related here. The cost of relocating the switch was to establish what Acme knew about the danger, not to establish blame towards the engineer.

Incorrect. The Commentator believes that the relocation of the switch would have prevented the accident, so this answer is contradicted by the stimulus.

Incorrect. The train wreck occurred because the engineer kneed a switch—the cost of relocating that switch in newer models doesn't explain that.

Incorrect. The Commentator concludes that Acme is responsible because they knew that the knee-level switches were hazardous, so this answer is contradicted by the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:

Question Type:
Argument Structure

Stimulus Summary:
Background - An engineer kneed a switch, causing a crash
Acme - "We didn't know that switch was dangerous!"
But - They spent half a million relocating the switch on new models. How do you explain that, Acme?
Acme - "The engineers thought it was inconvenient, not dangerous!"
But - You wouldn't spend half a million on a mere inconvenience
Conclusion - Acme should be liable for the wreck

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is a lot more involved than most question #1s, so let's work backwards from the conclusion.

In that conclusion, the Commentator states that Acme should be liable for a train wreck. Why would she believe that? Well, it appears that it has to do with a switch that was hit by the engineer accidentally—Acme knew that could happen, and that it was dangerous.

What evidence is there that Acme knew it was dangerous? They remodeled newer trains to relocate that switch at a cost of half a million dollars. The argument implies that they wouldn't have spent that much money to change something that was merely inconvenient, as they claim.

That cost is the statement in question, so it serves to undercut a defense of Acme's and show that they knew of the danger and thus should be held liable. Let's find an answer that states that!

Answer Explanation:
Acme claims they didn't know the knee-level switches were dangerous, moving them because they were inconvenient. The Commentator raises the high expense of changing them to suggest that they did, in fact, know they were dangerous—they wouldn't spend half a million bucks to iron out a mere inconvenience. This answer reflects that role, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The role of each statement in an argument is defined by its relationship to the conclusion. As such, in an Argument Structure question where the conclusion is clear (and it isn't the statement in question), it can be helpful to start there and work backwards to see how the argument works and how the statement in question fits into it.