Official Solution:Several police departments, including Fort Barnsdale's, have called on Traffnav, a social media navigation company that operates a real-time traffic condition sharing application, to remove the ability to report police officer sightings from the platform. The police departments making the request fear that such information could interfere with law enforcement operations. In response, Traffnav has refused to honor the request, citing that "most users tend to drive more carefully when they believe law enforcement is nearby."
Traffnav's response to the police department's request relies on which of the following assumptions? A. Fort Barnsdale has one of the lowest crime rates of any of the cities submitting the request to Traffnav.
B. Fort Barnsdale does not have the worst traffic conditions of the cities calling the removal of Traffnav's police location reporting feature.
C. Fort Barnsdale's law enforcement officers sometimes use the Traffnav app to avoid traffic congestion or road hazards.
D. Traffnav's real-time traffic data couldn't also be used to interfere with law enforcement operations.
E. Traffnav's real-time traffic data can also be used to avoid law enforcement operations.
Question Type: Assumption
Boil It Down (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Traffnav users more careful because of officer sighting reporting feature -> Shouldn't stop sighting reporting
Missing Information (assumption): Traffnav doesn't interfere with law enforcement operations.
Goal: Find the option that contains missing information required for the argument to logically function.
Note: The Opposite Test - Since by definition an assumption is a piece of missing information required for the argument to work, if we take the opposite of a valid assumption the argument will collapse. Therefore, we can use the Opposite Test with the options. Just take the logical opposite of the option and ask: does the argument collapse? If not, the option is wrong. If yes, it's the correct option.
Traffnav's response that drivers are safer when aware of law enforcement presence altogether and mysteriously bypasses the claim raised by the police departments that the awareness of law enforcement presence can interfere with law enforcement operations (think camera crews, and overly curious onlookers). Just because people are generally safer if they're aware that police are nearby, doesn't also prevent some from interfering with police operations.
We need an option that helps buttress Traffnav from the claim that the app can be used to interfere with police operations.
Let's see which option best achieves the goal:
Ⓐ Traffnav's response doesn't require any information about Fort Barnsdale's crime rate. Applying the Opposite Test: Fort Barnsdale could have a relatively high or low crime rate, and Traffnav's position could still stand.
Ⓑ Similar to A, this option raises a factor that is completely irrelevant to Traffnav's reasoning. Fort Barnsdale's traffic conditions have no impact on their argument. Whether the traffic conditions are good or poor is in no way something that Traffnav's response requires. The Opposite Test: Fort Barnsdale DOES have the worst traffic conditions of the cities calling the removal of Traffnav's police location reporting feature. No impact on the argument, so not required.
Ⓒ The Opposite Test: Fort Barnsdale's law enforcement officers NEVER use the Traffnav app to avoid traffic congestion or road hazards. No impact on the argument. Whether Fort Barnsdale's law enforcement officers do or do not use the app is not something required for Traffnav's argument to hold.
Ⓓ The Opposite Test: Traffnav's real-time traffic data CAN also be used to interfere with law enforcement operations. Argument dismantled. If most people tend to drive more carefully when they believe law enforcement is nearby, but Traffnav's app can ALSO be used to interfere with law enforcement operations, then Traffnav's argument would blow up in the company's face. That proves that this option is required to be true for Traffnav's response to hold.
Ⓔ This option is the statistical runner up because the ability of drivers to AVOID law enforcement seems to be on Traffnav's side at a casual glance, however the subject of AVOIDANCE is logically irrelevant to the argument. If some can use the data to avoid law enforcement operations that's irrelevant since it would also leave the possibility open that some could still use that data to seek out and interfere with law enforcement options. This piece of information is definitely not something required by Traffnav's response. The Opposite Test: Traffnav's real-time traffic data CAN'T be used to avoid law enforcement operations. No impact on the argument. People may still or still not interfere with police operations.
Answer: D
_________________