Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardIdentifying Underlying Assumptions

A team of urban planning researchers observed that city neighborhoods that instituted mandatory minimum green space quotas ten years ago currently report significantly lower average ambient noise pollution levels than adjacent neighborhoods without such mandates. The researchers concluded that establishing mandatory green space minimums is an effective urban planning policy for directly dampening urban noise pollution in residential districts.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the researchers' argument relies?

  1. The neighborhoods that enacted mandatory green space quotas ten years ago did not already have significantly lower ambient noise pollution levels than adjacent districts prior to the policy's implementation.Answer
  2. B
    Vegetation introduced to satisfy green space quotas absorbs high-frequency vehicular sounds more effectively than low-frequency industrial sounds.
  3. C
    Mandatory green space quotas provide greater overall public health benefits to urban residents than alternative zoning regulations.
  4. D
    Establishing and maintaining urban green spaces will remain affordable for municipal planning departments over the next decade.
  5. E
    Increasing green space is the most cost-effective technique available to municipal authorities for reducing residential ambient noise.

Answer

The argument assumes that the neighborhoods enacting green space quotas ten years ago were not already significantly quieter than adjacent neighborhoods prior to the policy's implementation.
The conclusion asserts a direct cause-and-effect relationship between green space quotas and noise reduction. For this causal claim to hold, the author must assume that the noise disparity did not already exist prior to the implementation of the quotas. Applying the Negation Test: if the quota neighborhoods were already quieter ten years ago before any green space was added, then the current lower noise levels cannot be attributed to the green space policy, thereby invalidating the author's conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument into premise and conclusion.
Premise: Neighborhoods with green space quotas enacted 10 years ago now have lower ambient noise than neighboring districts without quotas. Conclusion: Implementing green space quotas is an effective policy for dampening noise pollution.
Identifying premises and conclusion isolates the gap between observed correlation and causal claim.
2
Identify the logical gap in the causal reasoning.
The argument attributes the lower current noise levels specifically to the green space quotas, assuming no baseline difference existed before the policy was enacted.
Establishing causality requires assuming that the observed outcome was not already present prior to the intervention.
3
Apply the Negation Test to candidate assumptions.
Negating the statement—positing that the quota neighborhoods were already quieter before the policy—destroys the conclusion that the green space policy caused the noise reduction.
A statement whose negation invalidates the conclusion is a necessary underlying assumption.

Key Concept

Negation Test for Underlying Assumptions in Causal Claims
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Underlying Assumptions

More questions from this topic