A small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car doe

(E) A person who exercises vigorously every day has less body fat than an average person to draw upon is in the event of a wasting illness. But one should still endeavor to exercise vigorously every day, because doing so significantly decreases the chances of contracting a wasting illness.....................This represents exactly the same type of risk assessment as that found in the stimulus.


OA:E

ARGUMENT
Small cars have less protection in an accident than Large cars;
but since Small cars are more maneuverable than Large cars,
then they are better to drive and less likely to be in an accident.

Ans (E) those who exercise vigorously have less fat than an average person to draw upon in an illness, but one should still do exercise vigorously because they will be less likely to contract an illness.

I will go with option E.

Premise: A small car offers less protection in an accident than a large car does.
Counter Premise: smaller car is more maneuverable.
Conclusion: it is better to drive a small car because then accidents will be less likely.

The argument, first of all, introduced a premise that suggested that larger cars offer more protection than small cars in an accident, and one would expect that the author will encourage the use of larger cars instead of small cars. However, the author provides a counter-premise that suggests that a smaller car is more maneuverable and thus concludes that we are better off driving small cars since accidents are less likely.

We need to examine the answer choices and identify the one whose reasoning is most similar to that adopted in the argument above.

Answer choice A:
Premise: An artist's best work is generally that done in the time before the artist becomes very well known.
Premise: When artists grow famous and are diverted from artistic creation by demands for public appearances, their artistic work suffers.
Conclusion: So artists' achieving great fame can diminish their artistic reputations.
The reasoning in A is not parallel to the argument provided. This is because the original argument has a structure of a premise followed by a counter-premise that supports the conclusion of the argument. In A, we see two premises that support the conclusion. Also, the conclusion in A is not similar to that in the main argument. Hence the reasoning in A is not parallel to that in the main argument. A is incorrect.

Answer choice B:
Premise: it may cause the child some unhappiness to have to stay indoors when others are outside playing.
Counter Premise: the child can benefit from the time by learning to enjoy books and becoming prepared for lifelong learning.
Conclusion: It is best to insist that a child spend at least some time every day reading indoors.

The argument structure in B mimics that in the argument. A premise, a counter-premise then the conclusion. Comparing the conclusions, the original argument states that it is better but the conclusion in B says it is best. The wordings in the conclusions are key and they must be similar. Best is extreme and the conclusion in B is therefore not as flexible as that in the argument. B can be eliminated as a result of dissimilar wordings in the conclusions of the arguments.

Answer choice C:
Premise: lighter vehicles do not last as long as heavier vehicles.
Counter Premise: lighter vehicles are cheaper to replace.
Conclusion: For this work, vehicles built of lighter materials are more practical than vehicles built of heavy materials.

This option is quite close to the argumentation above. But the premises do not offer any specific reason as to why vehicles built of lighter materials are more practical than those built of heavy materials. All we can see is that lighter vehicles are cheaper. In the original argument above, it is clearly stated as to why it is better to drive small cars and this is because of the ease of maneuvering a small car, implying you are less likely to be involved in an accident. Last but not the least, something that is more practical is not necessarily better than the other. Eliminate C.

Answer choice D:
Premise: It is important to limit the amount of sugar and fat in one's diet.
Counter Premise: It would be a mistake to try to follow a diet totally lacking in sugar and fat.
Conclusion: It is better to consume sugar and fat in moderation, for the cravings that lead to uncontrolled binges will be prevented.

The conclusion of the main argument clearly states a preference for driving small cars than bigger cars. But D does not state that we should continue to consume sugar and fat but rather that we should consume them in moderation. There is a difference in the conclusions. Secondly, I can't see any specific evidence in the counter-premise that makes the consumption of sugar and fat a mistake. Eliminate D.

Answer choice E:
Premise: A person who exercises vigorously every day has less body fat than an average person to draw upon in the event of a wasting illness.
Counter Premise: Exercising vigorously significantly decreases the chances of contracting a wasting illness.
Conclusion: One should still endeavor to exercise vigorously every day.

This is the right answer. The structure of reasoning is very similar to that in the main argument. In addition, how the conclusion is arrived at is similar to that in the main argument. This is the most parallel of the lot. Although the conclusion does not specifically state that it is better to continue to exercise vigorously than not to exercise at all, this is implied in the conclusion. Because if we are advised to still endeavor to exercise vigorously, we are indirectly being told exercising vigorously is better than not exercising vigorously.

The stimulus states that the chances for accidents are less in large cars but still small cars are preferred bcz they can be easily maneuvered and hence can avoid accidents.

IMO c the reasoning is similar bcz light built though have to be replaced frequently are easy to replace.

Posted from my mobile device