Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design

Straight A!

A is the assumption of the argument. The "no loss in safety" can be realized only if the long distance travelers had heavier vehicles at their disposal. Only A gives us this possibility.

I will go with A here. Even though two passenger vehicles may be both heavy ones in some cases, it is unreasonable to assume that all of the "Most households whose members do any long-distance driving" would have heavy vehicles.

Crick

A is the best of the choices though I am very reluctant to agree with A. Had to side with A because the other options did not make much sense or did not support the conclusion.

A. Most households whose members do any long distance driving own two vehicules, therefore they will use the heavier and safer for long distance travel. Then the conclusion that net savings was achieved with no loss in safety is severly strengthened

The problem with E is that it doesn't affect the argument. 2 decades ago prototypes (not manufactured for the masses) of Time-machines could have been made for all we know, but that doesn't affect the argument.

The argument is that manufacturers improved the overall fuel efficiency by manufacturing - light vehicles, which are not safe for long distances but are fuel efficient for city driving and heavier vehicles, which are not fuel efficient but are safer for long distance driving.

Hence if most households have at least 2 vehicles, one light and one heavy then the manufacturers must have avoided the dilemma.

crux-
1. a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation

2. a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel.


conclusion- Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.


Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?


(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles....correct...


(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.more cars dont matter


(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.we are not comparing weight of large/ small vehicles


(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.so what?


(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.does'nt matter

Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma because the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since at the time most automobile traffic was local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.
(C) Even large automobiles are, on average, lighter today than similar sized vehicles were two decades ago.
(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.

A:
Already discussed here automobile-manufacturers-who-began-two-decades-ago-to-design-122006.html

the question is very ambiguous...as we have to make additional assumptions to get to the OA.

I chose B, by making an assumption in the same way people made assumptions that in A, people have one heavier and one lighter car.

suppose more traffic is on highway. this means more traffic, which means traffic jams..people do not travel at high speeds (I say from my personal experience of driving to Chicago every morning - a portion of 2 miles, you can drive in 15-20 minutes).

just as A seems ok to some people making assumptions, same is B for me.

Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh / aditya8062 ,

Actually, I didn't find any option correct

Can you please explain, how could OA be A.

Stimulus-

the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles:
1) a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and
2) a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel

(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.

How can we say 1 will be lighter and other will be heavier one.
What if people have both heavier passenger vechile.

Please assist

hi..
the para talks of two vehicles as mentioned by you :-


the conclusion is


we are talking of both fuel efficiency and safety..
this means
1) no light vehicle went on long routes, and
2) no heavy vehivles plied locally..

But what about families which had to do both..
they must be having two vehicles to ensure that teh correct vehicle is used in correct place..

I had the same dilemma. How can we assume two vehicles per household as two types of vehicles. We are just assuming that they own two types. What if the household has multiple members who use the same type of vehicle for similar mode of transport.

Conclusion talks about: Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety


I chose B because it states that: There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago. Meaning two decades ago, not many cars used high-speed highways. Hence, most of the the traffic was local. Since most of the traffic was local, they used local type vehicle which resulted in fuel efficiency and safety.

Can someone explain the flaw in the above reasoning?

True! The option should have been ... "two types" of vehicles.

Question Type: Strengthen
Question Action: Support Premise; Support Assumption; Add New Supportive Premise

Premise: Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma
Premise: In the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways.
Premise: However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles:
Premise: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation,
Premise: and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel.
-----------
Assumption: Most people have lighter cars (conclusion states net savings was achieved with no loss in safety)
Assumption: Some people have heavier cars (conclusion states most traffic is local, AND there is no loss in safety)
-----------
Conclusion: Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
- Supports assumptions. Decent answer, let's check the others. After checking others, this 'ok' answer is the only one that supports the conclusion via assumptions.

(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.
- Non-useful information. Argument doesn't discuss population or car numbers increasing or decreasing. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
- Non-useful information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
- Non-useful information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
- Historical information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

Hi sayantanc2k and all,
I am still not convinced with the correct OA.
In my 2 cents,option B is a better contender.
More cars means more traffic;hence,making the car lighter to serve fuel-efficiency can be done with no loss in safety.

What's the flaw in my reasoning?
Please help

Premise : Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel.

Conclusion : Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Prephrase : To support that net saving was achieved with no loss in safety , we need to show that people are using cars as per their design i.e heavy vehicles for long distance travel whereas lighter vehicle for short distance travel.


(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.

This statement doesn't support anything in the statement. Lets say more cars are using high speed highways but people are not using heavy vehicles for that then conclusion will fall apart about safety. Moreover , it doesn't mention at all about vehicles. Out of scope

Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?


(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
Having two cars means one is light weight and other is heavy for the highway.And fi the households already have such practice of having two or more cars then they would be benefiting from the two cars that the manufacturer is offering.


(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.
The number of cars on highway is out of scope.

(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
out of scope.no such comparison in the argument.

(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
Out of scope.

(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
Out of scope for the argument.