Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumLogical Arguments and Causal Relationships

An urban planning board evaluated a two-year trial of intelligent adaptive street lighting across 50 municipal districts. Districts equipped with the adaptive lighting recorded a 30% reduction in electrical power consumption and a concurrent 15% decrease in nighttime pedestrian accidents. Critics of the initiative argue that the reduction in pedestrian accidents was not caused by the improved visibility from adaptive lighting, but rather by a simultaneous increase in police foot patrols deployed in those same districts during the trial period.

Which of the following joint selections correctly pairs one statement that, if true, most strongly supports the critics' argument with one statement that, if true, most strongly weakens the critics' argument?

  1. Supports Critics: Nighttime pedestrian accidents decreased exclusively during hours when police foot patrols were actively present on the streets. | Weakens Critics: Districts that received an identical increase in police foot patrols but no adaptive lighting upgrades saw no reduction in nighttime pedestrian accidents.Answer
  2. B
    Supports Critics: Police foot patrols were increased primarily in response to the initial drop in pedestrian accidents following lighting installation. | Weakens Critics: Districts that received an identical increase in police foot patrols but no adaptive lighting upgrades saw no reduction in nighttime pedestrian accidents.
  3. C
    Supports Critics: Nighttime pedestrian accidents decreased exclusively during hours when police foot patrols were actively present on the streets. | Weakens Critics: Reduced pedestrian accident rates prompted municipal authorities to reallocate police foot patrols away from districts with adaptive lighting.
  4. D
    Supports Critics: Adaptive street lighting units cost significantly less to maintain annually than traditional high-pressure sodium street lamps. | Weakens Critics: Overall pedestrian traffic increased by 25% during nighttime hours across all 50 districts during the trial period.
  5. E
    Supports Critics: Lower crime rates caused municipal leaders to select those specific districts for police foot patrol expansions. | Weakens Critics: Police department patrol schedules were adjusted in response to public requests following the decline in traffic accidents.

Answer

The option selecting 'Supports Critics: Nighttime pedestrian accidents decreased exclusively during hours when police foot patrols were actively present on the streets' paired with 'Weakens Critics: Districts that received an identical increase in police foot patrols but no adaptive lighting upgrades saw no reduction in nighttime pedestrian accidents.'
The correct answer provides a valid supporting statement and a valid weakening statement for the critics' argument. The statement indicating that accidents dropped exclusively during active patrol hours strengthens the claim that patrols were responsible for the drop. The statement showing that control districts with increased patrols but no new lighting saw no accident reduction isolates the patrol variable, demonstrating that patrols alone did not cause the decrease and thereby weakening the critics' argument.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the critics' causal argument
Critics claim that Increased Police Foot Patrols → Lower Pedestrian Accidents (and that Adaptive Lighting is not the true cause).
To support the critics, a statement must show that police patrols are directly tied to the accident decline. To weaken the critics, a statement must show police patrols did not cause the decline (or that lighting did).
2
Evaluate candidate statements for supporting the critics
The statement asserting that accidents dropped exclusively during active patrol hours ties the effect strictly to police presence, strongly supporting the critics' claim.
Showing tight temporal concurrency between the candidate cause and the effect strengthens a causal link.
3
Evaluate candidate statements for weakening the critics
The statement showing that control districts with increased patrols but no lighting upgrades experienced no accident reduction isolates the police variable and demonstrates it was insufficient to cause the effect.
If the proposed cause (patrols) occurs without the effect (accident reduction) in control settings, the causal hypothesis is weakened.

Key Concept

Causal Arguments and Controlled Variable Isolation in Two-Part Analysis
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Logical Arguments and Causal Relationships

More questions from this topic