PT133.S2.Q9 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The letter concludes that the evidence supports increasing speed limits, even though areas with lower speed limits also have lower vehicle fatality rates. This is based on the observation that fatality rates are rising in areas with lower speed limits.

The letter’s argument is flawed because it draws a conclusion about the safety of areas with low speed limits relative to other areas, while only considering evidence about areas with low speed limits. In other words, the argument fails to consider whether the same increase in fatality rates is happening in areas with higher speed limits.

The argument does base its conclusion on findings from the article which it criticizes, but this isn’t a flaw, because the argument seeks to prove that the article misinterpreted the evidence. So, it actually has to show that the same evidence leads to a different conclusion.

Whether high-speed accidents “often” cause fatalities isn’t relevant to the argument. The argument is specifically about the fatality rates in low-speed-limit versus high-speed-limit areas, and this possibility wouldn’t help to make that determination.

Whether or not people want to drive faster is irrelevant to the argument, because it doesn’t impact the issue of whether raising speed limits would be safer.

The argument draws a conclusion that a higher speed limit is safer based only on evidence about rising fatality rates in low-speed-limit areas. Without knowing whether fatality rates are also rising in high-speed-limit areas, this just isn’t enough to support the conclusion.

The argument does present claims as evidence against the opposing viewpoint: specifically, the increasing fatality rate in low-speed-limit areas.

PrepTest 133 - Section 2 - Question 9

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action