Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

PTF97.S1.Q4 Method Help

BendandSnap-1BendandSnap-1 Core Member
edited December 2021 in Logical Reasoning 39 karma

Can someone break down each answer choice?
Thank you


  • mesposito886mesposito886 Member
    edited December 2021 254 karma

    Sure! The stimulus contains the arguments of two speakers: McBride and Leggett. We know that both speakers agree on one thing: the new fuel efficiency standards will discourage the manufacture of full-size cars. McBride views this as a danger; when a full-size car and a smaller fuel-efficient car collide, those in the smaller car are more likely to be injured than if it were two full-sized cars colliding. Leggett, on the other hand, considers an alternative view: if the fuel efficiency standards discourage the manufacture of full-size cars, they'll put more small cars on the road, thus increasing the chance that when two cars collide, they'll both be small ones. When two non-full size cars collide, there's less chance of injury than when one of the cars is full-size. So unlike McBride, Leggett views the fuel efficiency standards as promoting safety rather than threatening it.

    AC A: According to Leggett, McBride is failing to consider another possibility of the fuel efficiency standards, but his claims aren't contradictory. If McBride instead had claimed that full-size cars were more dangerous and posed a risk to roads but that fuel efficiency standards should still be opposed, and Leggett had pointed McBride's contradictory views out, answer choice A would be a better fit.

    AC B: I see how this answer choice can be tempting! McBride's example features a full-size and subcompact car, and he doesn't consider the possibility of mid-sized cars or other cars whose passengers would be safer colliding with a full-size car than a subcompact's passengers would. The problem with this answer choice is that Leggett does not point this out in his response to McBride, and the question stem is asking us how Leggett responds.

    AC C: McBride considers what would happen if two cars collided and at least one of them was a full-size car. Leggett, however, considers what would happen if two cars collided but neither of them were full-size cars. So while McBride considers automobile safety as making sure that when cars collide they'll both be full-size, Leggett considers safety as making sure that when cars collide neither will be full-size. McBride sees more full-size cars as safer, but Leggett sees less full-size cars as safer. Answer choice C is correct.

    AC D : Leggett doesn't go after the generalization in McBride's argument, but instead introduces another fact (that two non-full size cars colliding is less likely to cause injury than if one was full-size) to challenge the way McBride is looking at the issue.

    AC E: McBride's advocates for the new fuel efficiency standards to be opposed. For answer choice E to be correct, Leggett would have to prove that it is actually impossible to oppose the new fuel efficiency standards, and Leggett does not do this.

  • BendandSnap-1BendandSnap-1 Core Member
    39 karma

    Thank you!

Sign In or Register to comment.