Critical Reasoning

Hi,

Here is a question i came across and my approach


The state legislature has proposed a law that requires all new cars sold in the state to be equipped with airbags for both front seat passengers .The auto industry has lobbied against the law, pointing out that airbags would prevent only small % of serious injuries bcuz in most accidents,serious injuries can be avoided by use of seat belts.


Conclusion-Auto industry lobbied against the law
premise-seat belts can help avoid serious injury
Assumption-Auto industry already puts seat belts in cars

weakening

1)Govt. has duty to protect its people(strengthening)

2)no. of accidents per mile is higher in this state than that for the rest of nation (my answer because it gives another reason why airbags are also needed with seat belts )


3)cost of equipping will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.(irrelevant as this tlks of costing)

4)Most injuries occur when front seat passengers are not wearing seat belts.(sounds strenghtener to me as my assumption states that auto industry already puts seat belts and thus accidents only happen when u r not wearing it .So no need for the airbags)

5)Bcuz law would apply to new car ,it would take nearly a decade for the majority of the state's cars to be equipped.(irrelvant bcuz it is talking about time factor)

The answer here is d .i do not understand the reason.

What should be going on in the mind when approaching weakening/srenghtner questions

Strengthen and Weaken are different questions, so your approach should be slightly different. Since this one is a Weaken, I'd focus on that Q-type, and hone in on the CONCLUSION. Since that it what we ultimately want to destroy.