WhitEngagePrep Hi
[color=#683d3d]WhitEngagePrep[/color] can you please check your reply. I guess you mis typed Incorrect in D
kabirgandhi
Exactly, that does not strengthen it. I was just trying to understand whether my understanding of the implication of this choice is correct, i.e. - I believe this is a weakener and that is why it should be eliminated
KarishmaB
For me, this and many other problems get easier when I follow a consistent process that including ID-ing the Question and Argument Types!
1. ID the Question Type (Support =
Strengthen)
2. ID the Argument & Deconstruct (Argument Type = Plan... write out the cause and effect).
Institute harsher penalties (to compete with desire to cheat) --(1)-> fewer trucks overload --(2)-> reduce safety risks and slow down wear and tear of roads and bridges
3. Pause & Plan
For a plan, we weaken by showing that an arrow won't hold, we strengthen by showing it will!
4. EliminateA - having the fine increase with the weight doesn't tell us if these arrows are more or less likely to hold - ELIMINATE
B - we don't care where the money usually comes from, we're trying to charge to STOP the cheating - ELIMINATE
C - this is fine but we're concerned about the roads for overweighted trucks, this is irrelevant - ELIMINATE
D - this directly attacks arrow (1) - if the costs to avoid the fee > fee, I'll just pay the fee and this won't stop me from cheating - ELIMINATE
E - this tells us that there are overloaded trucks all the time, but we don't know how this connects to having the higher fine actually change behavior, irrelevant - ELIMINATE!
Once you're more clear on what the argument is claiming, it becomes easier to see when things either work, do the opposite of what we want, or have no impact!
Hope this helps!

Whit