Summary
Increasing the capacity of Krakkenbak Bridge caused an increase in rush-hour traffic flow.
If the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology last year, this traffic flow wouldn’t have increased.
If this traffic flow hadn’t increased, the city’s financial predicament wouldn’t have been resolved.
If the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology last year, this traffic flow wouldn’t have increased.
If this traffic flow hadn’t increased, the city’s financial predicament wouldn’t have been resolved.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
If the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology, then the financial predicament wouldn’t have been resolved.
Since the financial predicament was resolved, this means that rush-hour traffic flow did increase and the city did invest in computer modeling technology.
Since the financial predicament was resolved, this means that rush-hour traffic flow did increase and the city did invest in computer modeling technology.
A
The city’s financial predicament would not have been resolved had the city chosen a competing computer modeling software package.
Unsupported. If the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology, then the financial predicament wouldn’t have been resolved. But the stimulus doesn't say anything about which software the company needed to choose; a competing software might have worked just as well.
B
The city’s financial predicament would not have been resolved had the city not invested in computer modeling technology.
Very strongly supported. By chaining the conditional claims, we see that if the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology, then rush-hour traffic flow wouldn’t have increased, and the financial predicament wouldn’t have been resolved.
C
On an average day, more traffic crosses the Krakkenbak Bridge this year as compared to last year.
Unsupported. Just because rush-hour traffic flow increased doesn’t mean that overall traffic increased. There could be the same amount of traffic crossing the bridge this year, just more traffic flow at rush-hour.
D
Traffic flow across the Krakkenbak Bridge during rush hour would not have increased had the city’s mayor not made investing in computer modeling technology the highest budgetary priority last year.
Unsupported. Rush-hour traffic flow wouldn’t have increased if the city hadn’t invested in computer modeling technology. But just because the city invested in this technology doesn’t mean that it was their highest budgetary priority last year.
E
The city’s mayor was a proponent of investing in computer modeling technology because of the city’s need to increase traffic flow across the Krakkenbak Bridge during rush hour.
Unsupported. We don’t know why the mayor supported investing in computer modeling technology. It did increase rush-hour traffic flow, but the mayor might’ve had other reasons for supporting it.
Summarize Argument
The court analyst concludes that courts should not allow DNA tests as evidence in criminal cases. The analyst supports this with the principle that if there isn’t widespread scientific agreement about how reliable a test is, then it is unreasonable to allow that test as evidence. And the reliability of DNA tests is controversial among scientists.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The analyst poses a rule for when courts should allow certain evidence, and then claims that DNA tests fail this rule due to controversy about their reliability. This assumes that any controversy about a test’s reliability is incompatible with widespread agreement about that test’s reliability. However, it’s possible that there is a widespread agreement that DNA tests are reliable at least to a certain threshold, despite controversy about their exact reliability past that point.
A
courts have the authority to admit or exclude any evidence irrespective of what experts have to say about its reliability
The fact that courts have the authority to admit or exclude evidence is irrelevant to an argument about whether or not they should admit certain evidence.
B
the standard against which evidence in a criminal case is measured should not be absolute certainty
The analyst never claims nor implies that the standard of evidence in a criminal case should be absolute certainty. The analyst’s proposed standard for scientific tests is “widespread agreement in the scientific community.”
C
experts may agree that the tests are highly reliable while disagreeing about exactly how reliable they are
The analyst assumes that because DNA tests’ reliability is controversial, that must mean there’s no widespread agreement. But if there’s agreement that they are very reliable, and controversy only about the exact reliability, that assumption no longer makes sense.
D
data should not be admitted as evidence in a court of law without scientific witnesses having agreed about how reliable they are
The use of scientific witnesses is irrelevant to this argument, which focuses on the opinions of the general scientific community as a standard.
E
there are also controversies about reliability of evidence in noncriminal cases
Whether or not evidence can be controversial in noncriminal cases is irrelevant to whether DNA tests meet the analyst’s proposed standard for criminal cases.
Summary
Members of the club who have rented more than 10 videos in the past month can get the discount coupon ONLY at the location that they last rented a movie.
Members of the club who have not rented more than 10 videos in the past month can get the discount coupon ONLY at the Main Street location.
Pat has not rented more than 10 videos in the past month.
Pat can get the discount coupon at the Walnut Lane location.
Members of the club who have not rented more than 10 videos in the past month can get the discount coupon ONLY at the Main Street location.
Pat has not rented more than 10 videos in the past month.
Pat can get the discount coupon at the Walnut Lane location.
Notable Valid Inferences
The stimulus is set up for us to draw the following inference: Pat is not a member of the club. This must be true because if Pat were a member of the club, then she’d be limited to getting the coupon only at the Main Street location, since she hasn’t rented more than 10 videos in the past month. But she can get it somewhere besides the Main Street location.
A
The only people who can receive the special discount coupon at the Main Street location are Frequent Viewers club members who have not rented more than ten videos.
Could be false. We know members who haven’t rented more than 10 videos can get the coupon at the Main Street location. But there could be other kinds of people who can also get the coupon there. Perhaps someone who rented more than 10 videos last rented there.
B
Some members of the Frequent Viewers club have not rented more than ten videos.
Could be false. We don’t know whether any members haven’t rented more than 10 videos. We get a rule about members who haven’t rented 10 in the last month, but that doesn’t imply there exist members who havent rented 10.
C
Some members of the Frequent Viewers club can receive the special discount coupon at more than one location of VideoKing.
Must be false. The rules about where members can get the coupon either imply that the member can get the coupon only at Main Street or only at the location they last rented. That means any individual member could only get the coupon at one location.
D
Some people who are not members of the Frequent Viewers club can receive the special discount coupon.
Must be true. As described earlier, Pat must not be a member of the club. So, at least some non-members can get the coupon.
E
If Pat rents a movie from the Main Street location, then she will not receive the special discount coupon.
Could be false. We know Pat can get the coupon at Walnut Street. We don’t know that she can’t get it at another location, too. We don’t know anythin about where non-members can get the coupon.