PrepTest 158

This answer choice suggests that the official confuses an effect for a cause. Although the official commits a causation flaw, this answer choice does not describe the type of causation flaw the official commits. The official assumes that the increase in parking fines caused a reduction in parking violations. The increase in parking fines could not be an "effect" of this reduction, as (A) implies. After all, the increase came before the subsequent ("Since then") reduction in violation.

When we see "takes for granted" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the official doesn't necessarily believe that raising fines again will "reduce parking violations at least as much as it did the first time." The official just says that raising fines again will result in "even fewer parking violations." Because we don't have any reason to think that the official believes increasing fines will result in the same reduction, this answer choice is incorrect.

When we see "fails to take into account" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Would this weaken the author's argument if true?"

The city deriving financial benefits from these fines would not weaken the official's argument. The official doesn't conclude that increasing parking fines will be a net benefit for the city. The official just concludes that it will reduce parking violations even more. This may cause the city to earn less revenue from parking violations (if the increased fines don't offset the reduced number of violations), but that doesn't affect whether there will be fewer violations.

When we see "takes for granted" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and would this strengthen the argument?"

In this case, the official doesn't necessarily believe that people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park them legally. The official might assume the opposite — people would prefer to park their cars illegally, so we need to raise the fines as much as we can to deter them.

Moreover, this answer choice would strengthen the argument if true. It may actually weaken the argument. If people who park their cars illegally would prefer to park legally, then fines may not deter them. If you would prefer to park legally but choose to park illegally anyway, there must be an issue with parking legally! Maybe there aren't enough legal spots! In that case, raising fines wouldn't persuade you to park legally — there'd still not be enough legal spots to park in!

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Passage Summary:
The city raised parking fines to pay for a new parking garage. Since then, parking violations dropped by 50%. If the city wants even fewer parking violations, it should raise fines again.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true. 
1. Checking to see if a common logical fallacy is committed is very helpful.
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that:
4. Accurately describes the reason why the premises are not enough to prove that the conclusion is true

Answer Anticipation:
On an Errors in Reasoning question, we should take the time to articulate why the premise or premises aren't enough to prove that the conclusion is true. To help organize our thought process, we can think about the common flaws that arguments commit over and over again.

This question is challenging because its flaw is not readily apparent. However, note that the official's conclusion is prescriptive — they argue that the city "should" raise parking fines again. Plus, the official highlights a goal that raising fines will accomplish: there will be "even fewer parking violations." So, the official assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between raising fines and reducing parking violations. Or, put another way, when a conclusion features an "if-then" statement with a "should" on the "then" side, the argument assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship — it assumes the "then" will cause the "if."

In this case, the official assumes that raising parking fines will result in fewer parking violations. The official bases this on a past correlation: they raised the parking fines six months ago, and then the parking violations went down. Even if these things happened in succession, it doesn't mean that the fines caused the decrease. After all, there could be an alternative cause — another reason why the parking violations decreased. Something like ... oh, we don't know ... the parking garage the city opened six months ago? If there's a big parking garage now, maybe fewer people are parking on the street, and perhaps that's why there are fewer parking violations.

But still, this is an Errors in Reasoning question, so we should be so narrow-minded in our anticipation. The correct answer could reference the parking garage as an alternative cause. It could reference the cause-and-effect flaw more generally. Or, it could reference the official's temporal flaw — assuming what happened in the past will happen again. Still, we have a good idea about why this argument is flawed, so we can evaluate the answer choices with confidence.

Answer Choice Explanation:
When we see "fails to establish" on an Errors in Reasoning answer choice, the question we should ask ourselves is, "Does the author believe this, and do we need to know this to draw the author's conclusion? 

The answer to both questions is "Yes," making this the correct answer.

The author assumes that parking violations decreased due to the decision to increase parking fines. So, the official believes that parking violations did not decrease for some other reason, like the availability of additional parking spaces from the new parking garage.

Moreover, to draw the conclusion that raising fines again will result in even fewer parking violations, we need to know that the initial decrease in violations was not due to the availability of additional parking spaces. If the initial decrease was due to the availability of additional parking spaces, then we can't expect that raising the fines again will result in fewer parking violations. Raising the fines didn't reduce the violations the first time, and we're not adding more parking spaces, so we can't expect a subsequent reduction in violations.

Key Takeaway:
When a conclusion features an "if-then" statement with a "should" on the "then" side, the argument assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship.