Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
The argument’s main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.
The conclusion of this argument is the bill should be adopted. The politician is concerned about the bill. Next he states the reasons why the bill should be adopted cause its related to public safety and blah blah....
So the main evidence of stimulus is that "the bill is about public safety."
People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so ----> intermediate conclusion
The main conclusion of argument is that the "bill should be adopted."
Thus the politician assumes that any bill on public safety will be adopted.
TIPS to find the evidence and conclusion of an argument:-
- Ask the question what the author asserts in the argument.
-Ask the question why does the author arrive at this conclusion..to find the evidence..