More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping

More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked. Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

P: More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked
C: Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

Ok, so think about the very easy set up above. We are told more people get injured at one crosswalk despite the fact that it is heavily marked, whereas other crosswalks not marked are not marked and see fewer/no injuries. Therefore, the signs are a waste. Well, wouldn't you want to the most dangerous to be the most marked? This is the largest issue and is the answer, per below.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because the argument:

(A) Fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones -- Yeah, so if the most dangerous gets the most attention/signs, then the statements above hold and the conclusion is wrecked.

(B) Takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money -- The only other one worth noting. Think about the statement. The author never says injuries are going down. The author doesn't start by talking about dangerous crosswalks, then the implementation of new signs, and then saying they are worthless (which would be this). The author is saying that because of the high number they are a waste. We have no idea if these fail to reduce injuries. Maybe they have? And maybe the street is just so dangerous that injuries are still high.

nightblade354 - Can you explain why D is incorrect?

TarPhi, (D) is saying that the argument is assuming that these are the only safety features. But is this the case? Remember, the argument is saying that because X and Y features don't work, therefore they are a waste. The argument never states that these are the only safety features.

But for the sake of argument, let's say they are the only safety features. Does that destroy our argument? And flip that assumption and let's say we have 50,000 other features. Does the argument become distorted in any way? Keeping in mind the conclusion that the two safety features listed are a waste, the answer is no to both.

Premise:
More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked.
Conclusion:
These so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

One assumption:
higher rate of injury = ineffectiveness of striping and flashing lights

A: crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones.
Here, the higher rate of injury is linked to the HIGHER LEVEL OF DANGER at the crosswalks, invalidating the assumption above and thus weakening the conclusion that these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.



Reasons to eliminate B and D:

B: safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries
Nowhere is it stated that striping and flashing lights fail to reduce the number of injuries.

D: crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features
The argument is not concerned with other safety features.
It is concerned only with the effectiveness of striping and flashing lights.

Pre-thinking: If the roads are not marked by striping its less likely a person will cross. Also, the very reason that they are marked means they might be risky.

(A) Fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones
Seems correct - matches our prethinking

(B) Takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money
Yes this seems to be a part of the argument but misses out many points

(C) Presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively as striping and flashing lights
Just as effectively as current solution but the whole argument is that the current solution itself might not be effective

(D) Takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features
Even if there might be any other feature we are concerned with the reduction in the accidents, hence out of scope

(E) Fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the injuries to occupants of cars
Irrelevant as it compares the injuries of the peds and the folks in the car. That is not the scope as we are concerned about the accidents happening due to the striping and flashing lights

More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked. Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because the argument:

(A) Fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones - CORRECT. If they are the most dangerous than money is secondary.

(B) Takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money - WRONG. A bit of right in direction but a better alternative is there in A.

(C) Presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively as striping and flashing lights - WRONG. Not the scope of the passage.

(D) Takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(E) Fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the injuries to occupants of cars - WRONG. A comparison is not what conclusion is about.

Answer A.