Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red ca

Source: PowerScore Forum

In this stimulus the author presents two things that are correlated, and then draws a causal conclusion from them. This argument is a classic fallacy. Just because there is a higher percentage of red cars involved in accidents, this does not mean that the red cars cause the accidents. For the conclusion to follow, the argument must demonstrate that the red color actually causes accidents, but it only demonstrates a correlation between red and accidents. Read this stimulus and react to it with your own commonsense; can getting rid of red cars really prevent accidents? Attack the conclusion.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not claim that insurance companies have or do not have the right to charge higher premiums. It simply mentions these rates as a premise to support its causal conclusion. This answer is not a part of the argument; therefore, it cannot be a flaw in the argument.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because it also deals with the higher premiums. If this fact were true, then it may justify the higher premiums for red cars. However, the argument has already justified these premiums in a different way, by stating that the red color of the car causes accidents. Therefore, this answer is unrelated to the argument.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Now, the causal connection between red color and accidents has been destroyed. If bad drivers prefer red, then they are the cause of the accidents, not the red color. Therefore, if the red cars were banned, these drivers would just have to buy other cars and lives would not be saved or accidents reduced.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it tries to tempt you by naming something that is missing in the argument: an exact percentage. However, in this argument we do not need to know an exact percentage; it is irrelevant. As long as there is a "higher" percentage of red cars, the correlation between red cars and accidents exists. The flaw in the argument is mistaking this correlation for a cause and effect relationship.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect, but it is tricky. The argument does make a big assumption in the conclusion, jumping from automobile accidents to lives being saved. However, the argument does not assume that every accident results in loss of life, as this answer choice states. Also, the flaw is not in this assumption, but in the cause and effect conclusion. If you attack the stimulus as you read it, you should see it.