Q4 - Citing the severity

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Paving the roads with rubberized asphalt is not financially feasible.
Evidence: Even though rubberized asphalt would make ice easier to remove and save money on road maintenance, rubberized asphalt is more expensive than plain asphalt, and our budget for building/maintaining roads can't be increased.

Answer Anticipation:
The author told us a way in which rubberized asphalt would save money ("less strain on maintenance budget") and a way in which rubberzied asphalt would cost more money ("it's more expensive to build with rubberized than plain asphalt"). The author ultimately concludes that we can't afford to switch to rubberized, so he must be assuming that "the extra money we'd SPEND to build with rubberized would outweigh the extra money we'd SAVE maintaining a rubberized road".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Extreme. Wouldn't have "ANY" other advantages? Even if rubberized roads have other advantages, the author can still argue that we just can't afford it with our present budget.

(B) Out of scope. Why does it matter whether the winters of consistent severity or fluctuating severity? This sort of trap answer just grabs a word from some "filler phrase" of the argument, like "Citing the SEVERITY of the city's winters".

(C) Out of scope. The author isn't worried about comparing asphalt to other road paving materials. He's worried about comparing the cost of building/maintaining rubberized asphalt vs. plain asphalt.

(D) Yes! When we negate this, it sounds like we CAN afford to do rubberized roads. Negation: "What we save WOULD pay for the increased cost of the rubberized asphalt".

(E) Out of scope. Whether their current techniques for removing ice from plain asphalt are the least expensive or 2nd least expensive, the author can still make the same point that rubberzied asphalt would save money on maintenance but cost money on building. If anything, when we negate (E), it seems like we strengthen the author's general gist that our current system of plain ashpalt is as cheap as we can get.

Takeaway/Pattern: To anticipate where the objections/assumptions would come from, it was important to see this argument resting on dollars and cents. Can we or can't we afford rubberized asphalt? The only things we were told that relate to money are that we SAVE money on our maintenance budget but SPEND more money on our building budget.

#officialexplanation

[skdygks03]

Can somebody explain wrong answer choices and the right answer choice?