1. Understanding the Structure of the Argument
Premise 1: Enforcement of local speed limits through police monitoring has been unsuccessful in Ardane.
Premise 2: Nearby towns have successfully reduced traffic speeds by 20-25% on residential streets by installing speed humps.
Conclusion: To enhance safety in residential neighbourhoods, Ardane plans to install multiple speed humps.
Overall Argument: Since police monitoring hasn’t worked and speed humps have been effective elsewhere, installing speed humps should improve safety in Ardane.
Let’s briefly evaluate each option to see how it interacts with the argument:
• A. Supports the need for speed humps by showing high speeds, but doesn’t present a drawback.
• B. Presents a drawback by highlighting that speed humps could impede emergency vehicles, thereby introducing a significant negative consequence.
• C. Indicates that Ardane has higher speed limits, which could complicate the effectiveness of speed humps but isn’t as direct a drawback as B.
• D. Suggests that unfamiliar drivers might be surprised by speed humps, which is a potential issue but not as severe as hindering emergency response.
• E. Addresses bicyclist preferences, which is a minor concern compared to emergency services.
Correct Answer: B. Because of their high weight, emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances must slow almost to a stop at speed humps.