LR Hlp Please - pt 23, s2, q26 Forum

[flash21]

Okay so, below I will show my line of reasoning (I typed this out as I was doing the question to capture my thought process for you guys. I'd appreciate corrections in my reasoning, thanks in advance.

180 (cambridge weaken package)

Ended up being between (C) and (D).

A. If teenagers drive shittier cars in general, it would make it more likely that when they DID get into an accident, it would be fatal

B. If teenagers are more careless – when they do get into an accident it would be more fatal (less protection = more fatal accidents, not necessarily worse drivers)

C. If they drive way more = increased chance of an accident, and not necessarily worse driving – just more of a chance to get into an accident (not sure if I’m reaching here)

D. Although teenagers could get into the same amount of car accidents as everyone else, their accidents just happen to be worse – meaning that they could have basic driving skills, but just happen to be in more SERIOUS car accidents, and not necessarily in totality way more accidents than all of the other drivers on the road

E. Kind of agonized over this answer choice for a while. My intial thought was “more likely to drive with more passengers = more fatalaties when crashed” , however – not sure if this would weaken the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills. So, even if they did have more passangers which = more fatalities if they crash, it doesn’t address the question of whether they are actually lacking basic driving skills – it only tells us about a tendency of passengers, and I’m not sure if I’m assuming too much in saying that more passengers = more fatalities

So it seems my intitial thought was right on this question. I always second guess myself in these except questions- seem to get it down to two pretty quick and get stuck between two. Pretty common issue for my on EXCEPT questions.

[flash21]

Hi Guys! Another question I had trouble with, thought it better to post it here rather than make a new thread.

pt 23, s2 , q19

I have my reasoning below. Was between D/E and got pretty stuck. Leaning towards (D), feel like its causing me to assume too much? Or maybe not. I haven't actually looked at the AC yet, I am about to head to work and at a crunch for time. Will look back at this thread later.

181.
A. Seat belts could be the alternative reason.
B. Better roads could be the reason alternatively
C. although more drivers are on the road – people could be driving a lot less, which would help there be less traffic fatalities
D. even if this is true, are we supposed to be enticed to assume that this is due to traffic accidents? We don’t know anything of the cause of this, so isn’t it going too far in assuming that because this doubled, this would weaken the argument because there is more traffic fatalities- because in reality we do NOT know why this doubling occurred – maybe there was a huge epidemic of some viral disease or something.
E. Wouldn’t this support the conclusion? If the argument is essentially MORE DRIVERS YET LET FATALITIES = MORE SKILLED DRIVERS, wouldn’t this just support the conclusion? Even though its mandatory drivers education, wouldn’t this still equate to more skilled drivers? Or not necessarily? A bit confused here. I’m having trouble fully comprehending the answer choice and its implications.

[Clyde Frog]

Hi Guys! Another question I had trouble with, thought it better to post it here rather than make a new thread.

pt 23, s2 , q19

I have my reasoning below. Was between D/E and got pretty stuck. Leaning towards (D), feel like its causing me to assume too much? Or maybe not. I haven't actually looked at the AC yet, I am about to head to work and at a crunch for time. Will look back at this thread later.

181.
A. Seat belts could be the alternative reason.
B. Better roads could be the reason alternatively
C. although more drivers are on the road – people could be driving a lot less, which would help there be less traffic fatalities
D. even if this is true, are we supposed to be enticed to assume that this is due to traffic accidents? We don’t know anything of the cause of this, so isn’t it going too far in assuming that because this doubled, this would weaken the argument because there is more traffic fatalities- because in reality we do NOT know why this doubling occurred – maybe there was a huge epidemic of some viral disease or something.
E. Wouldn’t this support the conclusion? If the argument is essentially MORE DRIVERS YET LET FATALITIES = MORE SKILLED DRIVERS, wouldn’t this just support the conclusion? Even though its mandatory drivers education, wouldn’t this still equate to more skilled drivers? Or not necessarily? A bit confused here. I’m having trouble fully comprehending the answer choice and its implications.

Wait are you asking about p23 s2 q19 which is a flaw question or p23 s2 q26 again?

[LauraS]

Okay so, below I will show my line of reasoning (I typed this out as I was doing the question to capture my thought process for you guys. I'd appreciate corrections in my reasoning, thanks in advance.

180 (cambridge weaken package)

Ended up being between (C) and (D).

In this question, our job is to show that the reasoning/evidence -- that teens have a higher share of the traffic fatalities than the percentage of drivers they represent -- does not show that teens lack basic driving skills. The wrong answers are going to give us alternative explanations of the evidence. Your reasoning is generally right on target.

A. If teenagers drive shittier cars in general, it would make it more likely that when they DID get into an accident, it would be fatal

Yes. They could have the same frequency of accidents as adults, but more fatalities because the cars are less stable.

B. If teenagers are more careless – when they do get into an accident it would be more fatal (less protection = more fatal accidents, not necessarily worse drivers)

I assume you mean that since teen drivers and passengers don't wear seatbelts, teens could have the same frequency of accidents as adults, but they'd have more fatalities.

C. If they drive way more = increased chance of an accident, and not necessarily worse driving – just more of a chance to get into an accident (not sure if I’m reaching here)

Not reaching at all. If teens drive twice as much as adults, teens could have the same accident frequency per hour of driving as adults. Having more accidents wouldn't mean that teens lack basic driving skills.

D. Although teenagers could get into the same amount of car accidents as everyone else, their accidents just happen to be worse – meaning that they could have basic driving skills, but just happen to be in more SERIOUS car accidents, and not necessarily in totality way more accidents than all of the other drivers on the road

We're trying to break the connection between the evidence -- that teens have a higher proportion of fatalities -- and the conclusion -- that teens lack basic driving skills. The fact that teens have more serious accidents doesn't break this connection. It doesn't give us an alternate explanation that has nothing to do with teens' driving skills. Why are these accidents more serious? Quite possibly because teens are worse drivers.

E. Kind of agonized over this answer choice for a while. My intial thought was “more likely to drive with more passengers = more fatalaties when crashed” , however – not sure if this would weaken the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills. So, even if they did have more passangers which = more fatalities if they crash, it doesn’t address the question of whether they are actually lacking basic driving skills – it only tells us about a tendency of passengers, and I’m not sure if I’m assuming too much in saying that more passengers = more fatalities

Saying more passengers = more fatalities is right on track. Teens could have the same percentage of accidents as adults, but they'd have more fatalities because there are more kids in the car. It's important to keep in mind that we're not looking for evidence that teens have basic driving skills -- we're not looking to prove the conclusion is correct. We're looking to show that the evidence used in the argument -- that teens have a higher proportion of the accidents -- doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that teens lack basic driving skills. This answer choice gives us an alternate explanation of the evidence, which indicates that the evidence doesn't necessarily support the conclusion.

So it seems my intitial thought was right on this question. I always second guess myself in these except questions- seem to get it down to two pretty quick and get stuck between two. Pretty common issue for my on EXCEPT questions.

[flash21]

Hi Guys! Another question I had trouble with, thought it better to post it here rather than make a new thread.

pt 23, s2 , q19

I have my reasoning below. Was between D/E and got pretty stuck. Leaning towards (D), feel like its causing me to assume too much? Or maybe not. I haven't actually looked at the AC yet, I am about to head to work and at a crunch for time. Will look back at this thread later.

181.
A. Seat belts could be the alternative reason.
B. Better roads could be the reason alternatively
C. although more drivers are on the road – people could be driving a lot less, which would help there be less traffic fatalities
D. even if this is true, are we supposed to be enticed to assume that this is due to traffic accidents? We don’t know anything of the cause of this, so isn’t it going too far in assuming that because this doubled, this would weaken the argument because there is more traffic fatalities- because in reality we do NOT know why this doubling occurred – maybe there was a huge epidemic of some viral disease or something.
E. Wouldn’t this support the conclusion? If the argument is essentially MORE DRIVERS YET LET FATALITIES = MORE SKILLED DRIVERS, wouldn’t this just support the conclusion? Even though its mandatory drivers education, wouldn’t this still equate to more skilled drivers? Or not necessarily? A bit confused here. I’m having trouble fully comprehending the answer choice and its implications.

Wait are you asking about p23 s2 q19 which is a flaw question or p23 s2 q26 again?

SORRY, that should say pt 24, s2, q19, weakening question

[flash21]

Okay so, below I will show my line of reasoning (I typed this out as I was doing the question to capture my thought process for you guys. I'd appreciate corrections in my reasoning, thanks in advance.

180 (cambridge weaken package)

Ended up being between (C) and (D).

In this question, our job is to show that the reasoning/evidence -- that teens have a higher share of the traffic fatalities than the percentage of drivers they represent -- does not show that teens lack basic driving skills. The wrong answers are going to give us alternative explanations of the evidence. Your reasoning is generally right on target.

A. If teenagers drive shittier cars in general, it would make it more likely that when they DID get into an accident, it would be fatal

Yes. They could have the same frequency of accidents as adults, but more fatalities because the cars are less stable.

B. If teenagers are more careless – when they do get into an accident it would be more fatal (less protection = more fatal accidents, not necessarily worse drivers)

I assume you mean that since teen drivers and passengers don't wear seatbelts, teens could have the same frequency of accidents as adults, but they'd have more fatalities.

C. If they drive way more = increased chance of an accident, and not necessarily worse driving – just more of a chance to get into an accident (not sure if I’m reaching here)

Not reaching at all. If teens drive twice as much as adults, teens could have the same accident frequency per hour of driving as adults. Having more accidents wouldn't mean that teens lack basic driving skills.

D. Although teenagers could get into the same amount of car accidents as everyone else, their accidents just happen to be worse – meaning that they could have basic driving skills, but just happen to be in more SERIOUS car accidents, and not necessarily in totality way more accidents than all of the other drivers on the road

We're trying to break the connection between the evidence -- that teens have a higher proportion of fatalities -- and the conclusion -- that teens lack basic driving skills. The fact that teens have more serious accidents doesn't break this connection. It doesn't give us an alternate explanation that has nothing to do with teens' driving skills. Why are these accidents more serious? Quite possibly because teens are worse drivers.

E. Kind of agonized over this answer choice for a while. My intial thought was “more likely to drive with more passengers = more fatalaties when crashed” , however – not sure if this would weaken the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skills. So, even if they did have more passangers which = more fatalities if they crash, it doesn’t address the question of whether they are actually lacking basic driving skills – it only tells us about a tendency of passengers, and I’m not sure if I’m assuming too much in saying that more passengers = more fatalities

Saying more passengers = more fatalities is right on track. Teens could have the same percentage of accidents as adults, but they'd have more fatalities because there are more kids in the car. It's important to keep in mind that we're not looking for evidence that teens have basic driving skills -- we're not looking to prove the conclusion is correct. We're looking to show that the evidence used in the argument -- that teens have a higher proportion of the accidents -- doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that teens lack basic driving skills. This answer choice gives us an alternate explanation of the evidence, which indicates that the evidence doesn't necessarily support the conclusion.

So it seems my intitial thought was right on this question. I always second guess myself in these except questions- seem to get it down to two pretty quick and get stuck between two. Pretty common issue for my on EXCEPT questions.

thanks a lot for this, this is a great expl.