Samantha: In over seventy-five percent of bicycle accidents these days, all cyclists involved are found to have a helmet on their heads. It stands to reason that enforcing stricter helmet laws will reduce the accident rate. Michael: I would bet that in nearly ninety-five percent of bicycle accidents all cyclists involved also have working bicycle lights. By your logic, we could prevent accidents by banning bicycle lights too. In responding to Samantha's argument, Michael:

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

demonstrates that parallel reasoning could lead to erroneous conclusions.

Correct

offers a cautionary example of a consequence resulting from this logic.

implies that the figure quoted in Samantha's argument is inaccurate.

undermines the soundness of using statistics to establish causality.

an example of a case in which helmet use did not cause a bicycle accident.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Preview

Official Explanation

Official

Michael's response highlights that just because a statistic is true (that most cyclists have working lights), it does not mean that the proposed solution (banning lights) is valid or effective. This demonstrates that parallel reasoning…

Read the full explanation

Create free account Sign in

Comments

FilipeFeb 1, 2025

Can someone explain it other way?

AasthaApr 18, 2025

got this wrong on my practice

PuruOct 31, 2024

thanks for taking time to upload it!

RoccoFeb 14, 2025

thanks for taking time to upload it!

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the argument's main conclusion as opposed to a supporting premise.

Common trap

Selecting a restatement of a premise or a side point instead of the central conclusion.