PT 23 LR1 #26 Forum

[DrackedaryMaster]

This is a weakenX question that I struggled mightily on. It's about Teenagers lacking basic driving skills and concluding additional restrictions should be placed on their license. I'm assuming that D is the answer because the other answer choices deal specifically with driving, but I could not understand how some of the other choices really weakened the argument. I mean, E, what does the number of passengers in a vehicle have to do with lacking basic driving skills? Actually for that matter, how do any of the incorrect answer choices weaken the argument?

[yzero1]

A) Successfully weakens because, if true, then it could be that it's not because teenagers lack basic driving skills that they are responsible for more traffic fatalities, rather it's the fact that the cars they drive are crappier.

B) Successfully weakens because it's possible that the higher rate of fatalities aren't the result of a lack of basic driving skills, but the fact that when teenagers + their passengers get into accidents, there is a higher chance of fatality because they are less likely to use seat belts.

C) Weakens because if they spend 2x more time driving as other drivers, their accident rate can still be proportionately higher even if they have perfectly normal driving skills. More time driving = more accidents.

D) Doesn't weaken because, even if it's true, it can still be consistent with the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills. You can argue that they cause more serious accidents because they lack basic driving skills.

E) If teenagers drive with more passengers than the average driver, then when they get into accidents, it's likely that more people are hurt (and thus the rate of fatalities is higher). This makes it unlikely that a lack of basic driving skills is the cause of the discrepancy.

All of the incorrect answers weaken by showing that there could be another reason behind the discrepancy in fatality rates other than a lack of basic driving skills.

[DrackedaryMaster]

thank you very much for the explanation. now it makes sense to me. the "alternate cause" has really been a tough thing for me to get a handle on in the weaken/strengthen arguments. Despite going through the Bibles twice and understanding the examples and working the specific problems (actively knowing its going to be present in the answer choices), I have had a hard time shifting this active approach to the actual PTs when I'm faced with a bunch of question types.

[yzero1]

No problem, and I agree that it's tough to juggle the multitude of strategies outlined in the LRB while in the midst of an actual PT. I think it'll get easier the more PT's you do though. After a while, your prephasing will become more automatic and you'll see assumptions instinctively. Good luck with the rest of your studying