ceilidh.erickson wrote:Whenever an argument makes predictions about the future, we should ask ourselves:
- will it definitely turn out that way?
- what might cause it NOT to turn out that way?
- if we're given a cause/effect relationship, could that cause have a different effect?
- if we're given information about human behavior, could people change that behavior?

In this case, charging people $1 to cross the bridge will result in one million dollars a day, and $30 million in a month... unless something changes. If people change their behavior because of the toll and stop using the bridge, then the city will not raise the required amount.

(A) The bridge, if not repaired, will likely collapse, causing the deaths of many people.
This helps to explain why we want to repair the bridge, but not what's MISSING from the argument. Incorrect.

(B) The toll will not cause a significant hardship on the commuters that use the bridge.
"Hardship" is a vague term here. If you interpret that to mean that hardship --> change in behavior, then you were adding your own assumption. Whether this creates hardship, people might still pay the toll, and the city might still raise the money. Incorrect.

(C) The toll will not induce some commuters to use mass transit when traveling between the two boroughs.
This is the missing piece. If this were NOT true, then the conclusion would fall apart. Thus, this is the necessary piece to complete the argument. Correct.

(D) After the repairs to the bridge are complete, it is estimated that the bridge will be able to handle 20% more traffic.
This again is another reason that bridge repairs are good idea, but this isn't necessary to the argument that the city will raise the required money. Incorrect.

(E)Most of the residents in Brookline and Kings use the bridge to commute to work each day.
Same as with D - this further supports the need for the bridge, but is not relevant to the argument about collecting $. Incorrect.