Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaMain Point

Consider the following argument:

Urban policy analyst: Municipalities frequently implement peak-period congestion surcharges on arterial corridors under the belief that tolling will directly curtail net metropolitan emissions. However, commuters attempting to avoid high tolls divert to unmonitored residential streets. This diversion creates extended stop-and-go driving conditions that significantly elevate fuel consumption per mile. Consequently, arterial congestion surcharges fail to produce a net reduction in citywide vehicle emissions. Transportation departments should therefore refrain from designating peak-period arterial surcharges as their primary clean-air measure.

Based on the analyst's argument, arrange the following claims in order of their logical progression, starting from the initial behavioral premise, moving through the intermediate reasoning, and culminating in the argument's main conclusion.

  1. 1Commuters seeking to avoid peak arterial tolls divert their travel onto residential streets.
  2. 2Traffic diversion onto residential streets creates stop-and-go conditions that elevate per-mile fuel consumption.
  3. 3Peak arterial surcharges fail to produce a net reduction in citywide vehicle emissions.
  4. 4Transportation departments should not designate peak-period arterial surcharges as their primary clean-air measure.

Cevap

The correct logical sequence begins with the behavioral premise regarding commuter route diversion, followed by the causal premise explaining elevated fuel consumption, leading to the intermediate conclusion that surcharges fail to lower citywide emissions, and finishing with the ultimate main conclusion that transportation departments should not adopt such surcharges as their primary clean-air policy.
The argument builds a sequential logical chain: first, it establishes that commuters divert to secondary streets (initial behavioral premise); second, it explains that this diversion increases fuel consumption via stop-and-go driving (causal premise); third, from these two points it infers that arterial surcharges do not reduce net emissions (intermediate conclusion); and finally, it utilizes this intermediate finding to support its ultimate normative recommendation that agencies should not make surcharges their primary clean-air policy (main conclusion).

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the foundational behavioral and physical premises in the stimulus.
The initial premise establishes that commuters divert onto residential streets, and the linked causal premise establishes that this diversion increases per-mile fuel consumption.
Foundational premises provide the raw factual observations upon which the author builds subsequent claims.
2
Locate the intermediate (subsidiary) conclusion.
The claim that arterial surcharges fail to produce a net reduction in citywide vehicle emissions is supported by the premises but is not the final stopping point of the author's argument.
An intermediate conclusion receives support from basic premises and in turn acts as evidence for a broader conclusion.
3
Determine the overarching main conclusion of the argument.
The prescriptive statement that transportation departments should refrain from designating peak-period arterial surcharges as their primary clean-air measure represents the ultimate takeaway.
The main conclusion is the final destination of the argument, receiving support from the intermediate conclusion without being used to support any further claim.

Anahtar Kavram

Distinguishing Foundational Premises, Subsidiary Conclusions, and the Ultimate Main Conclusion
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Main Point

Bu konudan daha fazla soru