Q9 - If Eva responded to Luis

[clarafok]

hello,

can someone tell me if B is a better answer than C because Eva mentions that a 'smart highway' system could decrease the loss of money that results from traffic congestion, and answer B says that radio stations could do the same?

thanks in advance!

[peg_city]

I should probably answer a few since I ask so many

A - I didn't pick this one because bad weather is not typical. Yes, for X amount of days a year a smart highway wouldn't be better, but the other days it would be.
C - is wrong because it wouldn't strengthen Luis argument, it would strengthen Eva's. Luis opinion is "Why would a smart highway be better than a radio"
D - irrelevant
E - Strengthen Eva's argument

[peg_city]

I don't get why B is a better answer then A because no where does it mention that cost is an issue.....

Why is B better then A?

[americano1990]

Eva does mention cost.
Read the third line from the bottom, where eva says, "it would decrease the considerable loss of money...."

[maryadkins]

Good discussion!

Here's a quick breakdown of the ACs on this one, which we should have posted a while back.

(A) is wrong because the issue here isn't whether the smart highway system will always reduce traffic congestion or not, but whether it's BETTER than the radio reports. It's the comparison that we're interested in. (A) says nothing about the radio.

(B) is correct because Eva is arguing that the SHS will save money. If it would be more expensive than it would be to improve the radio reports, that strengthens Luis's argument.

(C) doesn't strengthen Luis's argument.

(D) Privacy?

(E) doesn't strengthen Luis's argument, either.

[WaltGrace1983]

Eva:

SHS might improve traffic flow + decrease loss of money and productivity
-->
SHS should be installed

Luis:

The radio already has traffic reports
-->
SHS wouldn't be any better than the radio

Eva: Radio reports are too short to give sufficient description
Luis: ???

We need to do two things: (1) strengthen Luis' argument and (2) give a good challenge to Eva. Off the bat, I am pretty sure that the correct answer is going to do with the length of radio reports, as this is what Eva has taken up as her rebuttal.

(A) This is saying that the SHS is no more useful than radio stations during bad weather. Keep this. It seems to be headed in the right direction.

(B) Something to do with the length of radio report and gives a benefit to the radio reports. Keep this.

(C) This strengthens Eva's idea by giving a good reason to like SHS. Eliminate.

(D) Privacy of drivers? Is that a bad thing? Eliminate.

(E) Like (D), so what?



Now we are down to (A) and (B).

(A) is pretty good in that it makes SHS seem not as good but (A) isn't very strong because it doesn't give a reason for the radio reports to be BETTER than SHS. However, (B) is better because it gives a clear advantage to the radio reports ("less costly"), addresses Eva's contention (we'll just have the radio give "continual, lengthier traffic reports!"), and it addresses the reasoning that Eva likes the SHS: cost.

(B) really isn't a slam dunk in it's strength, but it is clearly better than (C), (D), and (E) while having more reason to select it than (A).

[maryadkins]

Well done, Walt!

[Mab6q]

A. looked so tempting here because Luis's original point was that since there are already traffic reports on the radio, how will this new system be any better. A. seems to add to this by showing us another way the Smart system won't brink much change: bad weather causes delays no matter which system you have.

Looking at B, it just seems so weak. Sure it might be less costly, but Eva would respond by claiming that overall increase productivity and decrease in loss of money would make up for that. I admit that those are additional assumptions, but is this question reflective of more modern strengthening questions. I hope not.

I needed a place to vent

[WaltGrace1983]

A. looked so tempting here because Luis's original point was that since there are already traffic reports on the radio, how will this new system be any better. A. seems to add to this by showing us another way the Smart system won't brink much change: bad weather causes delays no matter which system you have.

Looking at B, it just seems so weak. Sure it might be less costly, but Eva would respond by claiming that overall increase productivity and decrease in loss of money would make up for that. I admit that those are additional assumptions, but is this question reflective of more modern strengthening questions. I hope not.

I needed a place to vent

I agree with the sentiment. As I said, (B) is by no means a slam-dunk BUT it does address the length issue that Eva brought up in the stem. That was the thing that really helped me choose (B).