Q8 - Automobile manufacturers who began

[sumukh09]

This is a weaken question so it would be wise for us to decipher what the core of the argument is.

Core:

two types of passenger vehicles were designed by manufacturers to meet safety and fuel needs; a lighter vehicle for local transportation and a heavier one for long-distance travel + most automobile traffic is local -----> a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety


Answer choices:

A) has no bearing on the conclusion
B) this is almost a premise booster since we know that lighter vehicles are less safe on high speed highways and that the manufacturers accounted for this by designing large vehicles meant for long distance travieling
C) This doesn't weaken
D) This is the correct answer since if people who are traveling locally use high speed highways then lighter vehicles may be subject to the danger associated with driving on high speed highways which is exactly what the design of lighter vehicles is meant to avoid
E) unclear bearing on the conclusion

[rinagoldfield]

Nice work, Sumokh. I agree with your assessment of the core. But what’s the gap?

We know that manufacturers have created two car lines. One, which is fuel efficient but more dangerous, is intended for low-speed local transportation. The other, which is fuel-guzzling but safer, is intended for high-speed distance travel.

The argument’s conclusion_ that lots of local traffic means fuel has been saved and safety ensured_ rests on the assumption that both types of cars are being used in their intended capacity. But this is not necessarily true! Maybe people drive their light, dangerous cars on highways, and are less safe. Or maybe people chug gas guzzlers everywhere, meaning that they stay safe but waste fuel. We’re looking for an answer choice that points to this gap.

(D) is correct. If people use high-speed highways to travel locally, then which car do they take? The dangerous fuel-efficient one, or the safe fuel-eating one? Either safety or fuel efficiency will have to be sacrificed. This answer choice weakens the conclusion that safety and efficiency needs can be simultaneously met.

(A) connects fuel efficiency with power. But we want to connect fuel efficiency with safety. (A) is irrelevant to the conclusion.

(B) fails to weaken. So long distance drives are made on high speed highways? Great! Use the heavy, safe car, and save the light one for home. Safety achieved!

(C) is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter how many of each car type are produced; what matters is how each car type is used.

(E) is tempting. Perhaps we are meant to assume that this new lightness translates to an overall reduction in safety. But this is not necessarily the case. New technologies may have emerged that make light, safe cars possible, for example. (E) fails to weaken.