PT16.S3.Q7 - John: In 80 percent of car accidents

samirakhafa

Hi guys, can someone please help break this argument down. Thanks a lot!

Admin note: edited title

BinghamtonDave

I'm writing what I think the takeaway/form for this problem is. At the end of the post, I will note that this particular problem is not the greatest example of the form provided in my estimation.

Basically, this is one of two common variations on a necessary/sufficient conflation. We are give:
A---->B
and the argument concludes:
A---->B

The other common form of the necessary/sufficient confusion would be, we are given:
A---->B
we affirm having a B
we conclude we have an A

So in this problem the politician says:
Access and polluted
Therefore:
Access---->Polluted

Answer choice (C) displays this pattern:
Solitary---->violence up
Solitary---->Violence up

Note here the trick commonly used to deny the sufficient condition: we are given the definition of the denial of the sufficient condition, rather than a statement that merely says not insert sufficient condition. So "solitary" becomes "allowed to mix with fellow prisoners" rather than "solitary" becoming "not solitary." The lesson here is to follow the thread of the argument! Know what is going on in a general sense.

So here is my issue with this question: others can certainly correct me, "the public did not have access to the bay and it got polluted" does not read to me like a conditional statement, nor does it read to me as a statement where the premise functions as a sufficient condition and the conclusion functions as a necessary condition. This is not the common way the test writers would design this statement.

I hope this helps
David

Nabintou-1

John: the evidence shows this, so, here is the conclusion that can be drawn from it.
Judy: *doesn't deny the evidence John provides to reach his conclusion. Rather, provides a new reason why that particular premise (the evidence) cannot, on its own, lead to the conclusion that John reaches. So I pretty much read Judy's reply as challenging John to explain the new info provided (that: but people do 80% of their driving within 5 miles of home...). Can the same conclusion still be reached (people evidently drive less safely near home...)?

If yes, it requires, at minimum, an explanation of the new info provided. Which, I think, is AC [A].

samirakhafa

Thanks a lot guys!

MistaTee001

Great explanation Nabitou!

I got this question wrong. After reading your explanation, I can see that another way to look at Judy's response is that, they are stating that 80% of drivers do all of their driving within 5 miles and thus they don't do long distance driving, so that's something else that needs to be explained.