Q3 - Opponents of allowing tripe-trailer trucks

[ywan1990]

I am not sure about why (D) does not work.

I understand that the correct answer should give a reason to explain the lower road accident rate as (B) does. But it seems to me that (D) is also trying to give a reason, i.e. the lower rate is due to the license requirement rather than the trucks being safer.

Can anyone explain this? Thanks.

[nmop_apisdn2]

I am not sure about why (D) does not work.

I understand that the correct answer should give a reason to explain the lower road accident rate as (B) does. But it seems to me that (D) is also trying to give a reason, i.e. the lower rate is due to the license requirement rather than the trucks being safer.

Can anyone explain this? Thanks.

I can help you.

Okay, so the argument is this -

Premises: In the western part of the country where triple trailers are allowed on some highways, these vehicles have a smaller rate of road accident fatalities per mile of travel than other commercial vehicles.

Intermediate conclusion: Conclusion: Clearly, triple trailers are safer than other commercial vehicles.

Conclusion: THEREFORE, Opponents of allowing triple trailer trucks are wrong in claiming that these trucks are more dangerous than other commercial vehicles.

The first thing I was thinking about is whether those triple trailer trucks are a) driving as much as other commercial vehicles, b) whether there are significantly less triple trailer trucks on the road, which could bring down the average fatalities, and c) whether there are less people on the roads in the west and therefore less of a chance of crashing there. Lets jump into the answer choices:

(A) is wrong because it is entirely out of scope. The amount of trailers it takes to haul as much weight as a single trailer can is simply irrelevant.
(C) is wrong because it doesn't matter what the opponents of another problem thought about that problem - it certainly doesn't tell us anything relevant to our argument.
(D) is wrong because it talks about what is needed to drive the trailers, which doesn't tell us about the safety of those trailers relative to other commercial vehicles. Get rid of it.
(E) is wrong because it's simply an unnecessary comparison. It doesn't hurt the argument by telling us how many accidents happened in one year compared to the other two years.

Finally, (B) is our correct answer choice because this hit nicely with our prephrase c), which is that the reason it's accidents per mile in the west are lower is because there is less traffic and therefore less of a chance to get into an accident. It could very well be the case that the triple trailer trucks are prohibited in the east because there is more traffic and therefore more of a chance to get into an accident with these trucks. This sheds a ton of doubt on the support for the original argument's conclusion because it shows that the support (the rate of accidents is lower in the west) is actually due to something else. It doesn't entirely destroy the argument, but it definitely gives us a damn good reason to be suspicious of following through with the recommendation in the argument.

Remember to try and prephrase a weakness of the argument. Personalize the argument; imagine it as if someone was telling it to you.

Good luck!

[WaltGrace1983]

Exactly! In addition, I think that you can think of this question as one comparing a part to a whole. The pro-triple trailer party is telling us to look at the West of TT's and compare that to the national rate of CV's. This doesn't make any sense! Here is a somewhat analogous argument:

Jay Leno can run faster from home plate to first base then the olympian runner can run around every base. Clearly, Jay Leno is a faster runner.

The subject is different but the idea is the same. It is comparing a piece of the puzzle to the whole puzzle itself and saying they are analogous. What does the right answer do? It shows that this is not true: the PIECE is not analogous with the PUZZLE. In other words, the West is much safer than the rest of the country as a whole. Therefore, you cannot say that the west is representative of the whole; the piece is not representative of the puzzle.

As for (D), you would also need to make some pretty big additional assumptions - as you did - in order to make it work. Does having/not having a "special license" have anything to do with safety? Maybe not! In addition, if we are weakening the argument we should probably have an answer choice that relates to the support (the West-national highway system example).

[bharbin1544]

This is a weakening question. We are to find a flaw or gap and expose it to the detriment of the argument.

Premise: In the [i]western [/i]part of the country where there are areas where triple trailers are permitted on some highways, the rate of road accident fatalities per mile of travel is lower than the national rate for other types of commercial vehicles.

Conclusion: Triple-trailers are safer than other commercial vehicles.

Ok, terrible argument here. There are many gaps that could be exposed. My attention was immediately drawn the "the western portion of the country." Well, this part of the country is generally less populated than other parts of the country. Furthermore, it doesn't go further into the types of highways they were speaking of. Not all highways are the same. I would much rather see a big truck on an 8 lane interstate than on a small, rural state highway.

(A) Who cares about the weight? The weight that each can carry is of no consequence to us.

(B) Correct. This directly plays on my initial flaw. This calls into question the data set by saying that the author was essentially looking at only one part of the country. Since the highways of the west are traveled much less, of course the fatality rate is going to lower. There are less cars on the road that the triple trailers could interact with.

(C) Who cares what the opponents once opposed. It sheds no light on how the triple trailers are safer.

(D) Again, what does this matter. I think this answer plays on an assumption that you make that just because a person has to have a license to do something, they end up being safer. I know plenty of people with a firearms license that I would never go hunting with.

(E) This doesn't shed light on the argument because leaves out information regarding the same stats for "other commercial vehicles."

[Martinb9]

I use Ford 250 supper heavy-duty truck for towing purpose I use that for queens towing services, and also have a Ram 5500 truck, and have a different type of trailers open trailer closed trailer, mid-size and large-size trailers.