Self-paced
Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the Support lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. ████████ ███ █████████████ ███████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ █████████ █ ███████ ███████ ███ █████████████ █████ ███████████████ ███ █ ████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███████ █████ ████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████ ██ ███████
We Did It! We Solved Cars!
·
But Did We Really?
Light cars are fuel efficient but unsafe on the freeway. Heavy cars are fuel inefficient but safe on the freeway. What are we to do? Let's make light cars for the city and heavy cars for the highway. Best of both worlds!
Importantly, this argument has a two-part conclusion:
- The "two types" strategy saved fuel
- The "two types" strategy preserved safety
I'd say spotting the problem in this stimulus up front is medium-difficulty. Something along the lines of:
What if people used their cars for the wrong kind of activity? Light cars on the freeway, heavy cars in the city, etc.
7.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ █████████
a
Most households whose ███████ ██ ███ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██ █████ ███ █████████ █████████
This strengthens the argument by addressing a potential weakener – if most people who drive long-distance only own one car, they're pretty likely to use that car the wrong way. Maybe they buy a light car and drive it on the freeway (that's unsafe). Maybe they buy a heavy car and drive it around town (that's inefficient).
(A) says "nono don't worry that doesn't happen." Most people who drive long-distance own two cars, so they can get a heavy one for the freeway and use the light one locally.
b
There are more ████ █████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ████
(B) says the number of cars on the freeway is higher now than it was 20 years ago.
Does this connect to fuel efficiency? In this respect (B) almost weakens, because it suggests there may be a lot more heavy (i.e. fuel inefficient) cars around. It doesn't actually weaken, though, because we've still established
Does this connect to safety? If anything, more cars on the freeway seems less safe. More traffic might mean more accidents.
c
Even large automobiles ███ ███████ █████ ████ █████████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████
(C) does an excellent job strengthening the part of the conclusion that says we saved fuel, but it does so in a way that undermines the other part of the conclusion – that we preserved safety.
All the cars, even the big ones, are lighter now. Yay! Perhaps they're more fuel-efficient! By the same token, though, perhaps they're less safe on the freeway.
d
Most high-speed highways ███ ████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ █████████ █████████
Commercial vehicles aren't mentioned in the stimulus at all. That's not bad on its own – plenty of correct answers in Strengthen questions bring in new concepts – but it's bad in this case because there's no clear connection between commercial vehicles and safety. Do they make highways less safe because they're so big? Do they make highways more safe because they tend to move slowly?
e
Some automobile manufacturers ████████ ██████████ ███ ██████████████ █████████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ████
Manufacturers [did the "two types" strategy] 20 years ago. Our conclusion is about the effects of [that strategy]: it saved fuel, and it preserved safety.
(E) discusses stuff that happened before [the "two types" strategy]. A few manufacturers were messing around with this idea before it became widespread. The story of how the strategy came into being is irrelevant to the argument's discussion of its effects.