QUESTION TEXT: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Reducing speed limits doesn’t save lives or help the environment.
REASONING: Cars will spend more time on the road, where they can pollute and could get into an accident.
ANALYSIS: According to this argument, we’d all be safest if we drove at 150 mph, and got to our destinations really, really fast. See the flaw?
Cars aren’t as dangerous if they’re going slowly. And cars may pollute more at high speeds even if they are the road for less time.
- If motorists ignore speed limits then the argument is stronger. Speed limits certainly won’t make a difference if they are ignored.
- The conclusion was only about pollution and safety.
- This fact would strengthen the argument. The argument claims more cars are dangerous.
- CORRECT. Emissions might increase quite a bit with speed. Time is not the only factor.
- The argument doesn’t assume that road time is the only factor. The author of the argument might agree that drunk driving increases the risk of accidents, for example.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions