Self-paced
Bus driver: Support Had the garbage truck not been exceeding the speed limit, it would not have collided with the bus I was driving. ██ ██ ███ █████ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████████████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ ████████ █ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ███ █ ███████ ████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███ █████████
Summary
A bus driver concludes that she should not be reprimanded for her involvement in a recent traffic accident. This is because the accident was caused by the other driver breaking the speed limit, whereas she was obeying all laws.
Notable Assumptions
The author’s only evidence for her claim is that the other driver caused the accident by speeding, whereas she was obeying the law. She has not established why this means she should avoid a reprimand, however, and is assuming these ideas are linked. We are looking for an answer choice that expresses this link as a conditional statement, which leads to a firm prediction:
If an accident is caused by another driver breaking the law, a bus driver should not receive a reprimand.
18.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███ ████████ █████████
a
If a vehicle █████ ██████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ████ █ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████████
(A) leads to the wrong conclusion. We are not trying to prove that the bus driver isn’t at fault; we are trying to prove that she shouldn’t be reprimanded.
b
A bus company ██████ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ████████ ██ █ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ █████████ ███ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ████████
Wrong trigger. The police report didn’t say the other driver was completely at fault. It just said that the bus driver was obeying traffic laws, so we can’t activate this conditional statement.
c
Whenever a bus ██████ ██████ █ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █████████ █ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ ███████
Leads to the wrong conclusion. If the sufficient and necessary conditions were swapped, this would support our conclusion; (B), however, only lets us prove that the coverage should be criticized, not that it shouldn’t.
d
A company that ███████ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ █████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████
Wrong trigger. The premises give us no indication of whether the bus driver could have been expected to avoid the accident, so we can’t use this conditional statement.
e
When a bus ██ ████████ ██ █ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ █████████ █ ███████ ███████████
The premises state that the other driver caused the accident by breaking the law, not the bus driver. (E) tells us this is sufficient to know the bus driver should not be reprimanded, proving our conclusion.