Self-study
Editorialist: Some people argue that highway speed limits should be increased to reflect the actual average speeds of highway drivers, which are currently 10 to 20 percent higher than posted speed limits. ███ ████ ████████ █████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ███████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ███████ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ ██████ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████
Summarize Argument
The editorialist concludes that raising highway speed limits would greatly decrease highway safety, even though it would better reflect actual average driving speeds. Why? Because raising the speed limit would increase the average driving speed. This is because people who currently obey the limit would increase their speed to the new limit, while people who currently speed wouldn't slow down.
Notable Assumptions
The editorialist assumes that highway safety decreases when people drive faster—in other words, that average speed alone is a strong factor in safety, and that there are no safety benefits to a speed limit that better matches actual driving speeds.
26.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████████████ █████████
a
Some drivers who ████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███████
This doesn't undermine the claim that speeds would increase, threatening safety. "Some" could just be a few, and we have no reason to think that having a few slower drivers would increase safety.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
b
Uniformity of speeds █████ ████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ███ ███████ ███████ ██████
If the limits were raised, everyone would be driving the same speed. If this uniformity would actually improve highway safety, that weakens the editorialist's argument, which is all about speed.
c
Most drivers who █████ ██ ██ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ████ ████████ ██ █ ███████ █████████
Firstly, speeders may cause accidents without actually being involved in them. Secondly, "most" doesn't tell us if speeders are more likely to be in accidents. So this is irrelevant to highway safety.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.
d
Some drivers who ███████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ █████ ███████
If this were stonger than just "some," it could help the editorialist’s argument by telling us some people will be exceeding even the raised speed limits. As it is, though, this has no impact.
Directionally wrong
Directionally wrong
Answers that, if they have any effect, do the opposite of what we want (weaken when we're trying to strengthen, or strengthen when we're trying to weaken).
e
Most drivers who ███████ ███████ █████ ██████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████████
We’re not interested in why people currently choose to violate the speed limit, or in what drivers believe to be safe. This is irrelevant to the factual link between driving speeds and safety.
Illusory inconsistency
Illusory inconsistency
Answer is attractive because it seems to (but doesn't actually) contradict the premises or conclusion.