Top Law Schools

I ran out of my post quota on the Manhattan forums so I couldn't post my question until tomorrow! I can't wait to see why my reasoning is incorrect, so I'm posting it here.

I understand why E) is the correct answer, but why is D) also not correct? Does it not attack the intermediate conclusion?

If the streets are built on public funds, it does not follow that drivers should have the exclusive right to use them whenever they want, because the nature of public funds would also warrant the citizens the right to control what happens on streets (i.e. modulating traffic by introducing speed bumps). If citizens have the right, doesn't it point out a flaw in the argument by indicating that introducing speed bumps is actually warranted?

Where did I go wrong?

The argument concludes that putting speed bumps in is blatantly unfair because all drivers have the right to use them whenever they please. This rests on the unwarranted assumption that speed bumps lead to not being able to use the roads whenever they please. But citizens can still use the roads, just with speed bumps on them. The problem with d is that it's the opposite of what the point of the passage is. Basically the author is saying that the residents don't have the right to control traffic in their communities bc all drivers should use them whenever they please.

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:The argument concludes that putting speed bumps in is blatantly unfair because all drivers have the right to use them whenever they please. This rests on the unwarranted assumption that speed bumps lead to not being able to use the roads whenever they please. But citizens can still use the roads, just with speed bumps on them. The problem with d is that it's the opposite of what the point of the passage is. Basically the author is saying that the residents don't have the right to control traffic in their communities bc all drivers should use them whenever they please.

Doesn't that count as a flaw in the argument? The residents in fact do have the right to control traffic because they also contributed to public funding of the streets, so drivers shouldn't use them whenever they please.

I'm confused!

h3jk5h wrote:

Colonel_funkadunk wrote:The argument concludes that putting speed bumps in is blatantly unfair because all drivers have the right to use them whenever they please. This rests on the unwarranted assumption that speed bumps lead to not being able to use the roads whenever they please. But citizens can still use the roads, just with speed bumps on them. The problem with d is that it's the opposite of what the point of the passage is. Basically the author is saying that the residents don't have the right to control traffic in their communities bc all drivers should use them whenever they please.

Doesn't that count as a flaw in the argument? The residents in fact do have the right to control traffic because they also contributed to public funding of the streets, so drivers shouldn't use them whenever they please.

I'm confused!

I think you are looking too deep into it. While IRL this might be an issue with the stimulus. But it is not a flaw that the reasoning makes. The authors premise and conclusion does not make a tacit assumption that the residents have the right to control traffic. If anything the author makes a tacit assumption that the drivers rights outweigh the residents rights in this instance. But even that is going too far. Our goal in flaw questions is to pinpoint the flaw in the authors reasoning in the stimulus.

h3jk5h, I think that you may be a bit confused about the standard syntax of flaw questions. This is often very confusing when we first start really digging into flaw questions, primarily because there are two major ways of writing a 'flaw' answer that seem completely opposite to one another.

Flaw answers come in three essential structures:

• 1) The argument assumes that [the assumption is true].
  2) The argument overlooks the possibility that [the assumption isn't true].
  3) [states the flaw type]

Taking a quick detour to my favorite silly argument:

• PREMISE: All boys like sports
  CONCLUSION: Andy likes sports

This argument is assuming that Andy is a boy. Therefore, I might write the flaw in two different ways:

• 1) The argument is flawed because it contains the tacit assumption that Andy is a boy.
  2) The argument is flawed because it ignores the possibility that Andy is a girl.

You believe that if the meat of (D) were true, that it would destroy the argument. But if that's true, then we cannot accuse the argument of assuming that thing. It's the opposite! We'd want to accuse the argument of overlooking the possibility of that thing.

This is a fundamental issue about flaw syntax that you want to get solid before tying yourself in knots on tricky flaw questions!

h3jk5h wrote: If the streets are built on public funds, it does not follow that drivers should have the exclusive right to use them whenever they want, because the nature of public funds would also warrant the citizens the right to control what happens on streets (i.e. modulating traffic by introducing speed bumps). If citizens have the right, doesn't it point out a flaw in the argument by indicating that introducing speed bumps is actually warranted?

I'll also point out that the intermediate conclusion did *not* say that drivers have the exclusive right to use the streets. Exclusive means that they can use the streets and no one else can. The intermediate conclusion does not go this far - it means claims that the drivers have the right to use the streets.

Also, we can't assume that public funding must similarly grant other citizens the right to restrict traffic - the reasoning would suggest that if drivers have the right to use the streets because they are public, that residents ALSO have the right to use the streets. But that may not mean that residents have the right to control what happens on streets.

All that being said, your first concern should be sorting out the flaw syntax issue; even if this answer choice did exactly what you say it does, it would still not be a valid flaw answer, as it would not be an assumption that the argument is making.