The city council of Metropolis is considering doubling fines for traffic violations. They point to a recent study in neighboring Urbanville, where a 50% increase in traffic fines led to a 15% reduction in accidents over six months. The council concludes that doubling fines in Metropolis will result in an even greater improvement in road safety.
In arriving at the conclusion, the city council has adopted which of the following strategies?The council recommends a policy for Metropolis by using evidence from Urbanville.
The key issue is that the passage never first establishes that Metropolis actually has a serious road-safety problem that needs this remedy. The council jumps straight to the solution without proving that the
problem exists in Metropolis.
(A) applying a mere correlation observed in one context to predict a causation in a different context
This is tempting, but not the intended answer. The passage says the fine increase in Urbanville “led to” fewer accidents, so the study is presented as causal, not as a mere correlation.
(B) assuming that doubling the magnitude of an intervention will double its observed effect
This is too strong. The council says doubling fines will produce a greater improvement, not that it will produce exactly double the effect.
(C) generalizing about the behavior of all drivers based on the response observed in a subset of the population
This is not precise. The argument compares two cities. It is not about a subset of drivers within one population.
(D) using statistical data to refute an unstated opposing argument about the ineffectiveness of fines
This is not happening. No opposing argument is mentioned or answered.
(E) prescribing a remedy for a problem whose existence is never actually established
This is correct. The council proposes doubling fines to improve road safety, but the passage never establishes that Metropolis currently has a road-safety problem, a high accident rate, or any need for this remedy.
Answer: (E)