Q23 - Town councillor: The only reason

[gplaya123]

Please someone check my work:

The argument says that prohibiting skating in park is not good because it would cause other kids to skate in the street, which is worse.

So basically, the argument is saying that when stopping something could produce the negative side effect that outweighs the benefits of stopping it, then it should not be done.

A) Looks good but the reasoning is not about weighing the pros/cons but about long term vs short term. Wrong

B) looks good. Even though stopping the usage of aphid might be good since it damages tomato, insecticide shouldn't be used since it could kill all the good insects, which is worse. Perfect fit.

C) It says that something should not be done on the basis that something no longer exists. Wrong.

D) Refute the action on the basis of not needing something. Wrong.

E) This is a bad argument because we don't know anything about the South Main Street: is it even one-way street?

[ohthatpatrick]

Great reasoning and write-up!

I would just somewhat tweak your analysis of (E).

They're considering X (one-way traffic pattern) with the goal of Y (accelerating the flow of traffic).

To match the original argument, we would want the answer choice to say that doing X would lead to Z, which would actually work against the goal of Y.

Instead, (E) says that the goal of Y is undesirable, so we shouldn't do X.

Keep up the good work!

[lavning]

For C could it also be ruled out on the basis that the premise states that 2 groups of people are to be protected while the stimulus only talks about 1?

Thanks!

[pewals13]

I think the key to this argument is just recognizing, from more of a wholistic perspective, what it is saying: "There's a reason to do this thing to solve a problem, but we shouldn't do it because it will only make the problem worse." (C) can be eliminated because the answer choice does not entail this line of reasoning. It does not, for example, suggest that the reason to stop smallpox vaccinations is because they will make children less healthy or more at risk for contracting the disease.

In reference to the above poster's point- I think those kind of subtle distinctions come into play based on the relative strength of the other answer choices. Hypothetically, if the rest of the logic was correct in this choice I don't think it would be outrageous for LSAC to make it the credited response if none of the other choices came close.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Another reason E) is wrong is because it requires the presupposition that because the traffic patterns are meant to accelerate traffic flow that they indeed to.