Self-study
Eva: Support A “smart highway” system should be installed, one that would monitor areawide traffic patterns and communicate with computers in vehicles or with programmable highway signs to give drivers information about traffic congestion and alternate routes. ████ █ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ █████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████ ███████ ███████████
█████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ █████ █ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████
Structure: Counter-Argument
Eva argues that a "smart highway" system should be installed that would tell drivers about traffic congestion and alternative routes by means of in-vehicle computers or programmable highway signs. She says that this system would improve traffic flow, and thus not only improve the tempers of drivers, but also reduce the loss of money and productivity that comes from traffic congestion.
Luis responds to Eva's argument by suggesting that a "smart highway" system wouldn't necessarily lead to better results than the traffic reports that are already on the radio.
Analysis: Necessary Assumptions
Eva's premise only states that a smart highway system would inform drivers about congestion and alternative routes. Her conclusion about the benefits that would result from such a system assumes that simply informing drivers about these things would actually lead drivers to start using the alternative routes. What Luis is trying to point out is that maybe information isn't the problem: maybe drivers already know about alternative routes through the radio traffic reports, but aren't using them because they're too out of the way, etc. So an assumption Eva's argument depends on is that smart highways sharing information about congestion would actually improve congestion.
8.
Eva’s argument depends on the ██████████ ████
a
on “smart highways” █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ██████████
Incorrect. Eva's argument doesn't talk about vehicle breakdowns causing congestion. Her argument assumes that lacking information about congestion and alternative routes is a significant enough factor that having that information would reduce congestion, not that every single cause of congestion will somehow be eliminated. So even if we negated (A) to say that on "smart highways," there would still be the breakdowns of vehicles that currently cause congestion, it could still be true that smart highways would improve traffic flow just by alerting people to these breakdowns.
b
traffic lights, if ███████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ █ ████ ████ ██ ███████
Incorrect. Eva's argument never mentions traffic lights, nor does she assume there would have to be a "free flow" of traffic — just an improved flow of traffic based on the availability of information from the smart highway.
c
traffic flow in ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██ █████████ ████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ██████████
Correct. Remember from our analysis that Eva's argument assumes that smart highways can (and will) lead to improvements in traffic flow. If we negate (C) to say that traffic flow in and around cities is now so congested that significant improvement is impossible, then we destroy Eva's argument that the smart highways would lead to various benefits downstream of improving traffic flow. (C) is a necessary assumption.
d
the type of █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ███████
Incorrect. Eva's argument doesn't depend on the specific type of equipment used being the same in each city. If we negate (D) to say that the type of equipment used in "smart highway" systems would not vary from one city to another, Eva's argument could still be true, as long as the different types of equipment still have the effect of sharing information about congestion and alternate routes.
e
older vehicles could ███ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ █ ████████ ██████████ ██████
Incorrect. Eva's argument doesn't require old vehicles to not be able to be fitted with equipment that could receive signals from the "smart highway." Negating (E) to say that old vehicles could be fitted with such equipment doesn't undermine Eva's argument at all — it potentially strengthens her argument. So (E) isn't a necessary assumption.