Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaEvaluating Causal Arguments and Alternative Explanations

A municipal transit authority recently applied a new light-reflecting polymer coating to crosswalks across three high-density commercial districts. Over the subsequent twelve months, nighttime pedestrian accidents in these districts decreased by 25 percent compared to the previous year. The authority concluded that the enhanced visual contrast provided by the polymer coating was the primary factor in reducing nighttime pedestrian accidents. Which of the following would it be most useful to determine in evaluating the transit authority's conclusion?

  1. Whether municipal authorities also increased traffic enforcement patrols and lowered speed limits in those three districts during the same twelve-month periodCevap
  2. B
    Whether the decrease in pedestrian accidents directly led municipal officials to lower the maintenance budget for standard asphalt pavements
  3. C
    Whether reflective polymer coatings create daytime surface glare that slightly increases driver discomfort during peak sunlight hours
  4. D
    Whether adjacent suburban residential areas experienced an increase in personal vehicle registrations over the same twelve-month span
  5. E
    Whether local civic groups had initially voiced objections regarding the high upfront procurement costs of the polymer coating

Cevap

Determining whether municipal authorities also increased traffic enforcement patrols and lowered speed limits in those three districts during the same twelve-month period is the most critical factor for evaluating the argument.
The correct answer provides information about potential confounding variables. In causal reasoning, establishing that event A caused event B requires verifying that no third factor (event C) occurred at the same time that could account for event B. If speed limits were lowered and police patrols were increased during the exact same period, those interventions offer a plausible alternative explanation for the drop in pedestrian accidents, directly challenging the conclusion that the polymer coating was the primary driver.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the argument structure and causal claim.
Premise: Crosswalks received reflective polymer coating; nighttime pedestrian accidents dropped by 25%. Conclusion: The polymer coating was the primary cause of the accident reduction.
Understanding the precise leap from observed correlation to claimed cause is essential for evaluating causal validity.
2
Identify the standard key vulnerabilities of causal arguments on the GMAT.
Causal claims can be evaluated by checking for alternative causes (confounding variables), reverse causality, or control group comparisons.
If another change occurred simultaneously, the observed effect might be attributable to that confounding factor rather than the polymer coating.
3
Evaluate the choices to find the factor that tests an alternative explanation.
Inquiring whether traffic police enforcement and speed limits were changed simultaneously tests whether an alternative cause produced the 25% decrease.
If enforcement increased and speed limits were lowered, those actions could account for the reduced accident rate, severely weakening the author's claim that the polymer coating was the primary cause.

Anahtar Kavram

Evaluating Causal Arguments: Identifying Confounding Variables and Alternative Explanations
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Evaluating Causal Arguments and Alternative Explanations

Bu konudan daha fazla soru