Q15 - Singletary: We of Citizens for Cycling

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Determine the Function

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Passing this ordinance shows that the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than genuine bike safety.
Evidence: The ordinance requires helmets, but if the city really cared about safety, it would instead construct more bike lanes and educate drivers about bike safety.

Answer Anticipation:
The claim being asked about is part of the Evidence. So we could prephrase, "it's a premise". But if we want to get more nuanced, the driver education is one of two measures the author thinks would constitute REAL bike safety. Meanwhile, the helmet measure is something the author thinks constitutes only the appearnace of safety.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Close, but the conclusion doesn't say that the city MISUNDERSTANDS what real safety would mean. The author may think the city KNOWS what real safety would entail but simply cares more about the appearance of safety.

(B) This works! The conclusion is definitely about the motivation of the city. The "driver ed" claim is part of the support for the conclusion. It is partial support, since driver education AND more bike lanes are both mentioned as more worthy steps the city could have taken.

(C) Wrong conclusion. The author never says that the helmet ordinance has been ineffective.

(D) Wrong role. The author believes the city is NOT interested in taking real steps such as driver education.

(E) So close. If we were saying that "the city has an overriding interest in its public image" and then presented an illustration, it should be something that shows the city looking out for its public image. Is "NOT educating drivers about bike safety" something that shows the city looking out for its public image? This answer would be better if it said "It is presented as an illustration of the city's relatively low interest in making the city become a safer place for cyclists". Moreoever, this answer choice is about the city's "public image", which is a lot broader than what the author is talking about, which is "appearance of safety".

Takeaway/Pattern: B vs. E is pretty tough here. You can almost talk yourself into liking E, but the claim about driver education was an illustration of what the city would have done if it really DID care about bike safety. So it illustrates the city's lack of genuine commitment to bike safety.

#officialexplanation

[bnuvincent]

I can't decide between B and D, could you please explain?

[bbirdwell]

(D) mentions "further measures" that the city "WILL take." This appears nowhere in the argument.

Consider a similar argument.

I object to the Celtics' new game plan. If they really wanted to beat the Lakers, they would wear knee socks and green sneakers.

The "If they wanted to..." phrase is a claim that supports the city's "motivation" to "appear safe." This is what (B) is referring to.

Make sense?

[blujade88]

To the invaluable founts of knowledge we call the Atlas instructors: can someone explain why answers A and E are incorrect?

(A): "It is cited as evidence for the claim that the city misunderstands the steps necessary for ensuring bicyclists’ safety." I’d think that this is the right answer, but it’s wrong. Is it because the reference to "what they shoulda done, but didn't" doesn't strictly function as "evidence", per se?
(E): "It is presented as an illustration of the city’s overriding interest in its public image." ? Any idea?

[bbirdwell]

(A) is wrong because the argument doesn't claim that the city "misunderstands."

(E) is wrong because it's simply not a good match. The phrase about driver's education is not an illustration (example) of the city's interest in public image; it's almost the opposite -- a claim about what the city would do IF it was interested in safety.

[carly.applebaum]

when an answer choice includes the word "evidence", does "evidence" refer to stuff like research studies/stats/results and not facts/suggestions?
for example, i automatically eliminated A and C in this question because there is no "evidence" (stats, data, research) mentioned in the stimulus; there are just suggestions/view points. is this an okay way to approach questions/answers?

thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

I would allow the term evidence to include facts and statements.

If I say that...

If Johnny really cared that he missed Suzie's birthday, he would send a card.

He did not send a card.

Therefore, John does not really care.

The conditional statement is used as evidence in reaching our conclusion.

So I would say that in this case, the statement of driver education is used as evidence in reaching the conclusion.

[shirando21]

I picked C, although I knew the language in it is way too strong, I found the argument core to be to prove wearing helmets not effective to lead to safety thus passing the new ordiance is not going to help the safety instead of why (the motivition behind) the city requires bicyclists to wear helmets.

Can anyone analyze the structure of the argument to see how I got wrong?

Thanks a lot.

[nflamel69]

premise: If they are concerned with the safety, they would do something else.

sub conclusion: this reveals there is an ulterior motive for this ordinance.

conclusion: we object to the new ordinance.

so the part the questions asked is one of the 2 parts (sentence 2 and 3) that are used to support the sub-conclusion that there is an ulterior motive, hence the word 'partial" and 'motivation' in answer C, which both matches up really well with the argument.

[jcarloserna]

I also chose C. B seemed a bit far reaching. Help Please.

[timsportschuetz]

premise: If they are concerned with the safety, they would do something else.

sub conclusion: this reveals there is an ulterior motive for this ordinance.

conclusion: we object to the new ordinance.

so the part the questions asked is one of the 2 parts (sentence 2 and 3) that are used to support the sub-conclusion that there is an ulterior motive, hence the word 'partial" and 'motivation' in answer C, which both matches up really well with the argument.

This is NOT correct! The conclusion is the last sentence of the stimulus! The first sentence is actually just background information and should be disregarded completely since it has ZERO impact on the core of the argument!

[kristalhamou]

Finding the core argument is what I was having difficulties with here. Would you say the below is correct?

Background: Citizens Object

Intermediate Conclusion: If the city wanted to become a safer place for cyclists, it would not require helmets

Premise: ...Instead, it would construct more bicycle lanes and educate drivers about bicycle safety

Conclusion: City is more concerned with appearance of safety than w/ bicyclist's actual safety

[andrewgong01]

Question Type:
Determine the Function


(D) Wrong role. The author believes the city is NOT interested in taking real steps such as driver education.

(E) So close. If we were saying that "the city has an overriding interest in its public image" and then presented an illustration, it should be something that shows the city looking out for its public image. Is "NOT educating drivers about bike safety" something that shows the city looking out for its public image? This answer would be better if it said "It is presented as an illustration of the city's relatively low interest in making the city become a safer place for cyclists". Moreoever, this answer choice is about the city's "public image", which is a lot broader than what the author is talking about, which is "appearance of safety".

Takeaway/Pattern: B vs. E is pretty tough here. You can almost talk yourself into liking E, but the claim about driver education was an illustration of what the city would have done if it really DID care about bike safety. So it illustrates the city's lack of genuine commitment to bike safety.

I intially went with "B" because it seemed to just describe the role correctly and did not really consider "E". However, now that I read "E" and the explanation more closely I am not sure how I would have differentiated "E" to say "E" is wrong. By talking about drivers education as the ideal solution if the city really cared safety, isn't that showing the city is more concerned with public image because it is not doing what it is suppose to be doing ( ensuring the true safety of cyclist) and instead is putting on a facade. In other words, I am not quite seeing the difference between the stated answer and " is presented as an illustration of the city's relatively low interest in making the city become a safer place for cyclists" as what would have made this choice better/

[ohthatpatrick]

A claim that said
"The city chose not to educate drivers about safety, despite the fact that driver education has more impact on safety than bike helmets."

would be what (E) is describing.

Even though the meaning of the overall argument allows us to infer such a claim, no such claim was ever made.

The "statement that mentions driver education" is
"If the city wanted to become a safer place for cyclists .......
..... it wouldn't require helmets, instead it would educate drivers."

So this statement is "an illustration of what the city would do if it DID want the city to be safer for cyclists".
Maybe we could inferentially say it's also "an illustration of the apparent fact that the city does NOT truly care if the city is safer for cyclists."

But it's certainly not presented as an illustration that the city HAS a priority (public image).
It's presented as an illustration that the city LACKS a priority (making the city safer for bikers)

[mcozzini20]

Can you please explain why the first sentence - "We the citizens for cycling freedom object to the city's new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets" is not the conclusion of the argument? I understand there is a key word indicator in the last sentence; however, it appears to me the first sentence is more of a summary of the entire argument.

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

First things first, it doesn't actually matter whether you call the first or last sentence the conclusion, for the sake of getting the correct answer.

These answers are all phrased in a more contextual sense of purpose, and they're not referencing absolute ingredients of the argument like Main Conclusion.

So I assume you're only curious why we bothered to call the last sentence the conclusion in our breakdown of the core. Here's my not-too-committed-to-it defense of that decision.

-------------------------------


Conclusions should be two things:
1. The author's opinion (almost always)
2. Supported by at least one explicit claim

Is the first sentence the author's opinion?
Kind of.

"We object to the ordinance" is actually kinda factual.
"The ordinance is bad (objectionable)" is opinionated.

You could potentially respond with completely different supporting ideas for those two different questions:
1. WHY should I believe that you object to the ordinance?
(We think it's bad ... we like the attention .... we're holding picket signs .... George Soros isn't paying us to be here)

2. WHY should I believe that the ordinance is bad?
(it's not genuinely aimed at safety ... if safety were the real intent, we'd take these other measures of bike lanes and bike safety education)

I think you're reading the first sentence and hearing it as
"The ordinance is bad. Here's why ...."

But it doesn't actually say that, and I'd prefer my conclusion to be explicit.

All that said, you could persuade me to be less technical and say the argument is:
MAIN CONC: the bike-helmet ordinance is bad
why should I believe that?
INTERMED CONC: the passage of it reveals the city cares more about appearances than safety.
why should I believe that?
PREM: If they really cared about safety, they'd do bike lanes and education instead of mandatory helmets.

[lai.heidar]

i'm still having a hard time understanding why D is wrong.

It says "its offered as an example" as if it could be a potential solution to making the city more concerned with cyclists safety.

In the sentence, it says "It would construct..." it sounds like its recommending an action the city should take.

Plz help.

[AndrewB184]

i'm still having a hard time understanding why D is wrong.

It says "its offered as an example" as if it could be a potential solution to making the city more concerned with cyclists safety.

In the sentence, it says "It would construct..." it sounds like its recommending an action the city should take.

Plz help.

D is wrong because it is not stated anywhere the at city will or will not "take further measures to ensure bicyclists safety". It says in the first sentence that the city passed a helmet ordinance only.