Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.
Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.
The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?
Clearly the contention is between A and B. Let's break the argument into evidences and assumptions.
Evidence 1: 2009 GoL increased fines for traffic violation.
Evidence 2: Since 2009 SCA reduced by 20%.
Assumption: Increase in fine led to the decrease in number of SCA.
Evidence: Until 2009, SCA = accidents involving 2 cars. Starting 2009, SCA = accidents involving 3 cars.
(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate. Incorrect
, because the evidence provided by the journalist talks only about the SCA and its meaning. It does not invalidate any of the evidences provided by the politician.