lexis wrote:
Hutonian Government Official: Federal law requires truck drivers to take a long break after driving for ten hours, but truck drivers frequently do not comply. Since the public rest areas along our highways cannot accommodate all the drivers needing a break, we plan to build more rest areas to increase the rate of compliance.
Hutonian Business Representative: But if the parking lots around our businesses are considered, there are more than enough parking places.
Which of the following, if true about Hutonia, would provide a reason for persisting with the government official\'s plan despite the objection?
(A) Public parking areas are evenly distributed along the highways.
(B) Truck drivers are most likely not to comply with the federal law if the total time required for a trip exceeds ten hours by less than an hour.
(C) In comparison to public rest areas, private parking lots near highways tend to be time-consuming for drivers to reach.
(D) Even when rest areas are available, some truck drivers park in places, such as highway access ramps, where their trucks are likely to cause accidents.
(E) Some public parking areas, particularly those on heavily traveled roads, are substantially larger than others.
I treated this like a weaken question, I wanted to weaken the objection that was raised by the biz reps. To make the governments plan seem more reasonable.
A - This option does not weaken the counter point raised by the biz reps.
B - This has no barring on the issue at hand which is there aren't enough parking lots available. I am not caring about compliance with the law. Just the need for parking lots and how the biz reps attack that need.
C - correct because it weakens the idea of truckers using private lots, therefore enforcing the need for more public areas.
D - This is supporting the opposite of the government. Instead of it being an issue of overcrowding, it's because truckers do not like it.
E - This does not help strengthen the argument or weaken the opposing option.