Q18 - Bus Driver: Had the garbage

[clarafok]

hello,

i'm wondering why E is a better answer than B.

is it because B adds 'completely the fault of another driver' as one of its conditions? where as in the argument, it doesn't explicitly say that the bus driver had no fault in the collision, especially since he could've reacted more quickly and avoided it.

any help would be much appreciated!

thanks in advance!

[cyruswhittaker]

The author assumes that failure to act more quickly, given that the traffic regulations were abided by, should not result in reprimand.

The reason that (B) is not correct is because it doesn't directly apply to the stimulus. The police report confirmed only that the driver did not break any traffic regulations, not that it was completely the fault of the other driver. In order to make choice (B) work, we would have to make an unwarranted assumption, so this would not provide a strong principle for justification.

(E) on the other hand fits well because it is a principle stated as a conditional statement, and the sufficient condition in choice (E) (the part following "if") fits the stimulus perfectly, and hence leads one to the necessary condition of the principle as justifying the argument's conclusion.

[AllyMaeBell]

Premise: I was abiding by all traffic regulations
Conclusion: The bus company should not reprimand me for the accident

Since the bus driver’s conclusion pertains to whether or not he should be reprimanded, the first
sentence about the speeding garbage truck is background information. We reach a conclusion
about whether the bus driver should be reprimanded based on the fact that he was abiding by all
traffic regulations.

The bus driver is assuming that in any situation in which he was abiding by all traffic regulations, the company should not reprimand him for the accident. For this conclusion to be valid, there can be no other reason the company should reprimand him for the accident (including what the bus driver mentions about possibly reacting more quickly to avoid the conclusion). We look for a principle that connects abiding by traffic regulations to not being reprimanded for an accident. Answer choice (E) does this.

Incorrect Answers
(A) This is an issue of degree and scope. First, our conclusion is concerned with whether the bus
driver should be reprimanded, so this answer choice goes too far in making claims that would
apply to the garbage truck driver. We don’t need the garbage truck driver to be solely
responsible—there could have been other things responsible, so long as the bus driver should not
be reprimanded because he was abiding by traffic regulations. Secondly, claiming that the
garbage truck driver is solely responsible for the accident would exonerate our bus driver, but it
is too strong. We need only to know that our bus driver should not be reprimanded, not that he is
totally devoid of responsibility.
(B) Detail creep. The police report confirms that the bus driver was abiding by all traffic
regulations, not that the accident was completely the fault of the other driver.
(C) Bus driver causes the collision to occur? Bus company should reprimand the driver? This
opposes the conclusion!
(D) Reasonably expected to avoid? We don’t know anything about whether our bus driver might
“reasonably” have been “expected” to avoid the collision, just that maybe he could have if he
had reacted more quickly. This doesn’t help the argument and, if we equate “could have reacted
more quickly” with “reasonably have been expect to avoid,” it actually weakens the argument.

[zainrizvi]

I'm confused with answer choice (A).

Is this a case where the answer choice WOULD be sufficient enough to prove the conclusion; however, it is not the reasoning that is employed in this particular stimulus. Consequently, it does not follow from this evidence.

Is that why (E) is a better answer? Because it deals directly with the evidence given and links them together to the conclusion.

[noah]

In case you didn't download and read Ally's explanation of (A), here it is:

(A) This is an issue of degree and scope. First, our conclusion is concerned with whether the bus driver should be reprimanded, so this answer choice goes too far in making claims that would apply to the garbage truck driver. We don’t need the garbage truck driver to be solely responsible"”there could have been other things responsible, so long as the bus driver should not be reprimanded because he was abiding by traffic regulations. Secondly, claiming that the garbage truck driver is solely responsible for the accident would exonerate our bus driver, but it is too strong. We need only to know that our bus driver should not be reprimanded, not that he is totally devoid of responsibility.

I think she says it pretty well. But to answer your specific question, I don't see (A) actually getting us to the conclusion. With (A) in place we know that the bus driver is not responsible, but can we conclude that the bus company shouldn't reprimand him/her? We still don't know when a reprimand is called for. Maybe we're dealing with an unfair world where folks that are not responsible get reprimanded because of some strange law.

With principle questions, you shouldn't be surprised by a broad answer, but this one is too broad, and too disconnected for the reasons Ally cites.

I hope that helps.

[elanaminkoff]

would choice D also be incorrect because we are unable to determine who should be reprimanded? The stimulus concludes that the driver should NOT be reprimanded..but we have no way to conclude who should be reprimanded..

Or, upon looking at this further it seems like determining who should be reprimanded would be the contrapositive. in the stimulus the author concludes that the driver should not be reprimand

stimulus :driver following rules --> -reprimand
answer d: reprimand--> reasonably could have avoided

Can someone please confirm this concept with me. I am trying to firm this up as it applies to principle questions in general. I have definitely seen questions where we can eliminate choices quickly simply because we cannot conclude what can/can't happen based off the stimulus along, and tricky answer choices often play off this idea.

Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi elanaminkoff,

Great reading of this problem. You’re right on target.
The stimulus states:

Driver following rules --> ~reprimand
For that reason, a correct answer could state this contrapositive:
Reprimand --> ~Driver following rules


(D) does give us something close to that contrapositive. “Only when,” like “only if,” points to the necessary condition of a conditional statement. (D) doesn’t quite give us what we need, though. It talks about “reasonable avoidance” when we are concerned with “rule-following.” For this reason, (D) is incorrect.

Remember: principle support questions are a lot like sufficient assumption questions. You want to stay really close to the language of the stimulus and fill the whole gap between the premise and the conclusion.

Overall, great eye, and keep looking out for contrapositives in the answer choices of tricky questions!

[AlexM563]

I still don't understand why C is wrong, that the bus driver should be reprimanded if he "causes a collision to occur by violating a traffic regulation." This seems to be the contrapositive of the principle in E.

NV: no violation of traffic reg.
V: violation of traffic reg.

NR: not reprimanded
R: reprimanded

C: When in a collision, V --> R

E: When in a collision, NV --> NR

Never mind. My problem worked itself out!