Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorNecessary Assumption

Transportation Planner: The city council proposes combating severe gridlock by replacing our entire fleet of human-driven taxis with a unified system of autonomous electric pods. Proponents claim that because these pods communicate seamlessly to coordinate speeds, they will completely eliminate the stop-and-go ripple effects caused by human braking. However, to operate continuously, the pods require a specialized inductive-charging lane to be carved out of the existing roadways on every major thoroughfare. Since this reallocation will reduce the number of lanes available to the vast majority of vehicles—which are not taxis—adopting the pod system will inevitably exacerbate the city's overall gridlock.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the transportation planner's argument depends?

  1. A
    The current severe gridlock on the city's thoroughfares is primarily caused by an inadequate number of traffic lanes rather than by the stop-and-go ripple effects of human braking.
  2. B
    Eliminating the stop-and-go ripple effects caused by human-driven taxis will have no positive impact whatsoever on the traffic flow of the remaining non-pod vehicles.
  3. C
    The specialized inductive-charging lanes will periodically require maintenance that temporarily forces the autonomous pods to merge back into the lanes used by non-pod vehicles.
  4. The reduction in congestion resulting from the pods' coordinated speeds will not offset the increased congestion caused by the loss of lanes available to non-pod vehicles.Cevap
  5. E
    The proponents of the autonomous pod system have failed to provide empirical evidence that human braking is the primary source of the city's traffic congestion.

Cevap

The correct answer is the option stating that the reduction in congestion resulting from the pods' coordinated speeds will not offset the increased congestion caused by the loss of lanes available to non-pod vehicles.
The argument weighs a positive factor (reduced ripple effects) against a negative factor (loss of a traffic lane) and definitively concludes a net negative outcome (exacerbated gridlock). For this conclusion to hold, the author absolutely must assume that the positive factor does not cancel out the negative factor. If we apply the Negation Test and assume the reduction in congestion *does* offset the increased congestion, the conclusion that gridlock will inevitably exacerbate falls apart entirely. Therefore, this assumption is strictly necessary.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Analyze the stimulus structure.
Identified the conclusion ('adopting the pod system will inevitably exacerbate the city's overall gridlock') and the premises (pods eliminate braking ripple effects, but require taking away a lane from non-taxi vehicles).
Deconstructing the argument is necessary to expose the logical gap between the evidence provided and the definitive claim made.
2
Identify the logical gap.
The planner acknowledges a benefit (eliminating ripple effects) but concludes there will be a definitive net negative (exacerbated gridlock) due to a drawback (loss of lanes).
When an argument weighs a benefit against a cost and concludes a specific net outcome, it assumes the relative magnitudes of these factors support that outcome.
3
Formulate the necessary assumption.
The negative impact of losing a lane must be strictly greater than the positive impact of eliminating the ripple effects.
If the positive impact were equal to or greater than the negative impact, gridlock would remain the same or improve, destroying the conclusion.
4
Apply the Negation Test to the anticipated assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'The reduction in congestion WILL offset the increased congestion.' This completely invalidates the conclusion that gridlock will inevitably exacerbate.
The Negation Test definitively proves if an assumption is strictly logically necessary.

Anahtar Kavram

Necessary Assumption: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Net Effects
Bu soruyu puanla