PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 16

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  The executive isn't stating a general rule and then applying it to an exception. The claim that these particular devices are easier to use is offered as a reason to regard them as safer. We can question that connection, but A doesn't identify a principle being misapplied.

• B
  Correct

  There's another problem even if we grant the executive's safety comparison: safer doesn't mean safe. The critics said these devices are dangerously distracting. The executive replies that drivers would otherwise use a less convenient alternative. Both claims could be true.

  Imagine that the installed device takes less attention than a handheld phone, but still takes enough attention to make driving dangerous. That would give the executive the claimed advantage without answering the critics. The comparison might defend choosing this device over another one; it doesn't establish that the criticism of this device is wrong.

• C

  This would mean the executive identifies something safety requires, then assumes that having that one thing guarantees safety. But the executive never establishes ease of use as a requirement for safety. The argument simply asserts that easier devices are safer, and then uses that comparison to dismiss a criticism about dangerous distraction. C describes a different mistake.

• D

  The executive treats devices as different: the installed devices are supposedly easier to use and safer than the alternatives drivers would otherwise use. D says the executive assumes they all produce the same distraction, which is the opposite of that comparison.

• E

  The premises don't simply repeat that the critics are wrong. They offer separate claims about what drivers will do and how easy the devices are to use. Those reasons don't settle the criticism, but a weak response isn't the same as assuming its own conclusion.