Q7 - Editorialist: The city council is considering increasin

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Flaw

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: Allowing the airport to handle traffic beyond its original capacity would decrease safety.
Evidence: Studies from 30 years ago show that every time we increased airport traffic beyond original capacity (even if we used latest safety technology), we got a decrease in safety.

Any prephrase?
Well, in order to argue with this author, we're definitely going to have to make it seem like THIS case is NOT the same as what was happening in those studies. We know that once again we're planning to increase traffic beyond original capacity while purchasing the latest safety technology. We would probably have to argue that we're not planning to increase capacity as much as they did in those 30 year old studies or argue that our latest safety technology is way better than it was 30 years ago, so things will be different this time. 30 years IS a long time in the world of technology.

Correct answer:
B

Answer choice analysis:
A) Is the author's conclusion based on a general statement? Not really. It's based on numerous studies conducted 30 years ago. Moreover, the "VERY limited number of particulars" sounds like a poor sampling accusation, but we're going off NUMEROUS studies that each tallied up numerous airports.

B) Could we weaken the argument by talking about what the latest technology is? Potentially. 30 years ago, we didn't even have widespread internet. It's hard to think that our ability to coordinate increased air traffic wouldn't have dramatically changed in 30 years.

C) Would it weaken the argument if we knew that supporters of the incrase are aware of the studies? Not really. The supporters could be aware of the study but still optimistically believe that THIS time it's different.

D) This describes a Famous Flaw: "failure to prove isn't proof of failure". Unproven vs. untrue. The author isn't going from "you haven't proven X" to "Therefore X is false". The author is making a move from "X has been true in the past" to "Therefore X is true in the current situation".

E) This is irrelevant. This court case is simply over the truth value of whether or not safety will decrease. Weighing that against other stuff is beyond the purview of what we're debating.

Takeaway/Pattern: This is basically a well-dressed Sampling/Comparison Flaw. We're reaching a conclusion about THIS case on the basis of evidence about similar cases. To weaken an argument that hinges on a Comparison/Sample, we have to make the comparison seem unfair or the sample seem unrepresentative of what we're now applying it to. The correct answer is just a vague way of saying, "You can't just write off the possibility that our newest technology has actually improved to the point of solving this increased-airport-traffic problem."

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

May I ask why A and D are wrong?
Also why is B wrong?
I thought A is correct because the data of 30 years ago is the limited number of particular instances.

[MingL143]

I chose "C" because I prephrased
" The author assumes that the studies 30 years ago could still apply for the current situation."
"The author assumes that what was true 30 years ago remain true 30 years later. "
"The author fails to consider that the current technology can be advanced enough to keep the safety even after the permitted level is beyond the capacity. "

[ohthatpatrick]

Those are perfect prephrases!

How did they match up with (C)? I don't see any parallel, other than the noun 'studies'.

(C) is asking about whether the council members are aware of these studies from 30 years ago.

Does it matter whether they're aware or not aware?

The conclusion is about whether or not increasing air traffic beyond capacity would decrease safety.

The awareness or lack of awareness about a potentially relevant study does nothing impact that conclusion.

If there's a potentially relevant study, we just want to know:
1. Is it relevant?
2. What does it say?

We know what it says, which is that safety goes down when you increase traffic beyond original capacity.

We don't know if it's relevant, for the reasons you brought up:
- does a study from 30 yrs ago address the same type of issues?
- has modern technology gotten so different that it's possible we'd be better nowadays at maintaining safety?

Ideally, you would have heard (B) addressing what you were bringing up with this prephrase:
"The author fails to consider that the current technology can be advanced enough to keep the safety even after the permitted level is beyond the capacity. "