Critical Reasoning

Since the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit was mandated on our highways, both money and human lives have been saved.
All of the following, if true, would strengthen the claim above EXCEPT:
(A) Most highway users find that travel times are not appreciably lengthened by the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.
(B) Highway driving at 55 miles per hour or less is more fuel-efficient than high-speed driving.
(C) Nearly all highway safety experts agree that more accidents occur at speeds over 55 miles per hour than at lower speeds.
(D) The percentage of fatalities occurring in highway accidents at speeds greater than 55 miles per hour is higher than that for low-speed accidents.
(E) Automobiles last longer and require fewer repairs when driven at consistently lower speeds.

Source: 1000 cR

my reasoning is as follows. pls post yours

(A) Most highway users find that travel times are not appreciably lengthened by the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit. travel time is not an issue here. not relevant
(B) Highway driving at 55 miles per hour or less is more fuel-efficient than high-speed driving.more fuel efficient -> saves money. strengthens
C) Nearly all highway safety experts agree that more accidents occur at speeds over 55 miles per hour than at lower speeds.strengthens
(D) The percentage of fatalities occurring in highway accidents at speeds greater than 55 miles per hour is higher than that for low-speed accidents.strengthens
(E) Automobiles last longer and require fewer repairs when driven at consistently lower speeds. strengthens a little but we are not completely sure whether 55mph can b classified as consistently low speed


OA A

You are right, and I guess you selected A as well. "strengthens a little" is as good as "strengthen".

sumanr84 wrote:You are right, and I guess you selected A as well. "strengthens a little" is as good as "strengthen".

Hi Sumanr84

longer travel time => more fuel consumption => more money => A strengthens, while in E we are not sure abt whether 55 is low or not...so does not strengthen...IMO E

Could you help to understand reasoning error. Thanks

IMO A.

Looks like A-D have been well investigated. Here's why E strengthens the argument: note that the choice talks about 'lower' speeds and not 'low' speeds. By reducing the max speeds allowed on the highway, the overall speed is 'lowered,' but may not necessarily be 'low' (by who's standard is 'low?'). However, E only cares about 'lower' speeds and not 'low' speeds; this is directly addressed in the prompt, so E strengthens the argument.

Domnu wrote:IMO A.

Looks like A-D have been well investigated. Here's why E strengthens the argument: note that the choice talks about 'lower' speeds and not 'low' speeds. By reducing the max speeds allowed on the highway, the overall speed is 'lowered,' but may not necessarily be 'low' (by who's standard is 'low?'). However, E only cares about 'lower' speeds and not 'low' speeds; this is directly addressed in the prompt, so E strengthens the argument.

Thanks. I go it now for E.

Can you explain how A does not strengthens (pls refer my earlier post). Thanks

A does not strengthen as it says that the travel time wont be extended by the 55mph speed limit. However,we are only interested in knowing whether the 55 mph speed limit has helped to save human life or has helped save money.
Lengthening of journey time is not an issue here.

I agree that A looks extremely attractive but compare it with E.
E talks about consistently low speeds ( if speed limit is 55mph then people will drive at or below this speed limit) justifying the phrase 'consistently low speeds'.

By POE, i eliminated E as it strengthens a little. Any answer choice that strengthens 1% or 100% is a choice that strengthens the argument.

Hence i chose A in the end after a lot of deliberation!!

hope this helps!!

pnk wrote:

sumanr84 wrote:You are right, and I guess you selected A as well. "strengthens a little" is as good as "strengthen".

Hi Sumanr84

longer travel time => more fuel consumption => more money => A strengthens, while in E we are not sure abt whether 55 is low or not...so does not strengthen...IMO E

Could you help to understand reasoning error. Thanks

fuel consumption is related to the travelled distance not to the time taken.

Hi,

The argument states that "both money and human lives have been saved"

Now, to support this conclusion shouldn't we look for actual facts. Option C just expresses opinion of safety experts but that may not be true.

Between A and C, doesn't A strengthen the argument more as less commuting time translates into monetary benefit? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

I agree with C...all others strengthen one way or the other imo