Bunuel
Civil Engineer: Trade between the northern and southern cities of our state has stagnated greatly. There are few reliable methods of transporting goods between these two groups of cities, so in order to spur economic growth in this state, we must build a freeway system, connecting the two groups of cities, that passes no more than five miles away from each city.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the civil engineer’s reasoning?
A. Building a freeway system that passes as much as ten miles from each city would be sufficient to greatly increase trade between the northern and southern cities of the state.
B. There are other, more important causes for the lack of trade between the northern and southern cities of the state in addition to a lack of reliable methods of transporting goods between these two groups of cities.
C. The state’s infrastructure budget is not currently large enough to finance the construction of a freeway system.
D. Growth in the commercial traffic between two groups of cities is most often associated with the closeness of the transportation system with the cities.
E. The reliability of existing methods of transporting goods between the northern and southern cities of the state can be improved to some extent without building a freeway system
Im a bit confused by the wording in this case.
"reasoning" implies, that we do not look at the argument in general, but in the argument and its reasoning in itself.
Therefore we ignore the fact, that there might be better reasons for the stagnating trade. (B is out)
More, we would look at traffic-related counterfacts.
A) Possible, but seems not sufficient in terms of significance (We have no idea about the actual status quo)
B) X
C) Also an outside reason. It might be sufficient in general, but this fact does nothing to negate the general logic given.
D) Not relevant
E) We dont know about the significance + Outside reason.
-> I chose B, as it was the strongest "Non-Reasoning"-Answer.