Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardApplying the Negation Technique

Urban Planner: The proposed peak-hour congestion fee for driving into our downtown district will not, as some critics claim, economically devastate small downtown retail businesses by driving shoppers to suburban alternatives. We need only look at the city of Marston, which implemented an identical pricing scheme five years ago. Following the implementation of the fee, Marston experienced a significant drop in downtown vehicular traffic, yet total retail revenue within Marston's downtown congestion zone increased by over 20 percent in the subsequent years.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the urban planner's argument?

  1. The 20 percent increase in total retail revenue in Marston's downtown zone was not exclusively realized by large corporate retailers while small retail businesses suffered severe economic declines.Answer
  2. B
    Marston and the urban planner's city share virtually identical demographic profiles and public transportation infrastructure.
  3. C
    The implementation of the congestion fee in Marston did not result in a significant increase in retail revenue for suburban alternatives located outside the congestion zone.
  4. D
    Most shoppers who currently patronize small downtown retail businesses in the urban planner's city rely on personal vehicular transportation during peak hours.
  5. E
    The significant drop in downtown vehicular traffic in Marston was directly caused by the congestion pricing scheme rather than by independent macroeconomic trends.

Answer

The correct answer is the statement clarifying that the 20 percent increase in total retail revenue in Marston was not exclusively realized by large corporate retailers while small retail businesses suffered severe declines.
The urban planner attempts to prove that small businesses will not be harmed by pointing to a 20 percent increase in total retail revenue in another city. However, total revenue is an aggregate metric that could easily mask severe disparities among different types of businesses. For the planner's evidence to successfully defend small businesses, it must be true that the overall increase wasn't merely the result of large corporations making massive gains while small businesses were devastated. By applying the Negation Technique, we assume the opposite: what if the revenue gains in Marston WERE exclusively realized by large corporate retailers, while small retail businesses suffered severe economic declines? If this were true, Marston's example would actually prove the critics right, completely destroying the urban planner's conclusion. Because negating this statement destroys the argument, it is a necessary assumption.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the argument's structure to identify the conclusion and the supporting evidence.
Conclusion: The fee will not devastate small downtown retail businesses. Premise: In Marston, an identical fee led to a 20% increase in total downtown retail revenue despite a drop in traffic.
Identifying the core argument is necessary to pinpoint the exact logical gap between the evidence provided and the specific claim being made.
2
Identify the logical shift in scope between the premises and the conclusion.
The premise provides evidence about 'total retail revenue' (the aggregate whole), but the conclusion makes a specific claim about 'small downtown retail businesses' (a constituent part).
Arguments that use evidence about an entire group to defend a specific subgroup often commit a flaw of division, requiring an assumption that the subgroup's experience mirrors the whole.
3
Apply the Negation Technique to the candidate assumptions to see which one destroys the conclusion.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The 20% increase WAS exclusively realized by large corporate retailers while small retail businesses suffered severe economic declines.' This completely undermines the planner's conclusion.
A necessary assumption is a statement that MUST be true for the argument to hold. If its logical opposite destroys the argument, it is the required assumption.

Key Concept

Applying the Negation Technique to Scope Shifts (Whole-to-Part)
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Applying the Negation Technique

More questions from this topic