Top Law Schools

Hi All,

I chose (C) when I was first going through the MLSAT LR book, but upon revisiting this problem, I think I see why (C) is clearly incorrect. Can someone please verify my reasoning?

Conclusion:
If people did not use cars, the modern cities would be different from the ones we have now.

Why? Premise:
Use of cars resulted in scattered houses, immense parking lots, and less wooded areas.

Analysis:
Just because the houses and parking lots arose as a result of the use of cars, doesn't mean that the cars were the only way the house and parking lots arouse. There could be a multitude of other ways that that specific landscape arouse. (A) highlights that flaw.

I think the key to this question is recognizing that the argument is assuming an implicit causal connection between the use of cars and the specific landscape that resulted from that use. It is not assuming that only the use of cars can have any affect on the landscape of cities in general, but rather, that only the use of cars could have caused a specific landscape to occur. Reading the argument this way actually allows for (C) to be true, without having a negative impact on the argument.

With regards to answer choice (C), the author allows for this possibility, because the argument is focused on a very specific instance of cause and effect; between the use of cars and a specific landscape change.

Looking back on my thought process, I can see why I chose answer choice (C), based on my loose understanding of the argument. My general pre-phrase was something along the lines of: "Well something other than cars can affect geography too".

I just thought I'd give my two cents here. I thought about it in a much simpler, more general, way.

Personal automobile --> Specific geography

Premise: If ~Personal automobile
Conclusion: ~Specific geography.

This basically looks like a false negation. If you have A → B, you cannot merely say ~A→ ~B. If we take the contrapositive of this ~A → ~B, we'd also have B → A. In other words, the argument is assuming that this specific geography came about ONLY BECAUSE OF the automobile. However, there could be a bunch of other things that could have given us this same exact specific geography.

EDIT: oh, and also, (C) is much too "soft." The argument doesn't exactly overlook that other technological innovations may have had some effect. This just really isn't the focus of the argument. Let's say we actually take (C) into account. It really doesn't show the main flaw in the argument.

NOW, if it had said, "overlooks the possibility that many technological innovations other than the personal automobile could have had the same effect on the way people live," that would be a correct answer (at least I would assume so). However, that would basically just be saying what (A) said anyway. In other words, the "some" in (C) is a bit problematic.