More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at crosswalks not so marked. Obviously these so-called safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis

The author concludes that the crosswalk safety features are a waste of money because more pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks with these features than at crosswalks without them.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author compares the number of injuries at crosswalks with safety features and crosswalks without them. He assumes that these crosswalks are similar to one another in all relevant ways, but there could be some important differences between them. For example, maybe far more people cross at the crosswalks with safety features. Or maybe these crosswalks are more dangerous in the first place and the safety features make them much safer, even though more injuries still occur at them.

A
fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones

If the crosswalks got safety features because they were the most dangerous, there would likely be even more injuries without the features. Even though the safety features haven’t completely eliminated injuries, the author can’t conclude that they’re a waste of money.

B
takes for granted that safety features that fail to reduce the number of injuries are a waste of taxpayer money

The author never claims that the safety features “fail to reduce the number of injuries,” just that more injuries occur at crosswalks with the safety features.

C
presumes that there are less expensive features that will reduce the number of pedestrian injuries just as effectively as striping and flashing lights

The author doesn’t propose any alternative measures for reducing injuries. He never assumes that less expensive features will be as effective, he just suggests that the current features aren’t effective enough.

D
takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features

The author only addresses striping and flashing lights, but he never assumes that these are the only safety features at crosswalks.

E
fails to consider that, in accidents involving pedestrians and cars, the injuries to pedestrians are nearly always more serious than the injuries to occupants of cars

The author only addresses pedestrian injuries. How these injuries compare to drivers’ injuries is irrelevant.


20 comments

John of Worcester, an English monk, recorded the sighting, on December 8, 1128, of two unusually large sunspots. Five days later a brilliant aurora borealis (northern lights) was observed in southern Korea. Sunspot activity is typically followed by the appearance of an aurora borealis, after a span of time that averages five days. Thus, the Korean sighting helps to confirm John of Worcester’s sighting.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that the Korean sighting of the aurora borealis 5 days after John’s reported sighting of unusually large sunspots helps to confirm his reported observation. This is because sunspot activity is typically followed by the appearance of an aurora borealis after a time that average five days.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the observed aurora borealis did not appear as a result of phenomena unconnected to sunspot activity. This overlooks the possibility that many other phenomena could give rise to an aurora borealis, which could account for the Korean sighting of the aurora borealis.

A
An aurora borealis can sometimes occur even when there has been no significant sunspot activity in the previous week.
If anything, this undermines the argument by suggesting the aurora borealis may have occurred without any sunspot activity occurring five days before it.
B
Chinese sources recorded the sighting of sunspots more than 1000 years before John of Worcester did.
This simply indicates that sunspots have occurred for many years. But it doesn’t help confirm John’s reported sighting of sunspots or connect the aurora borealis with confirmation of John’s sighting.
C
Only heavy sunspot activity could have resulted in an aurora borealis viewable at a latitude as low as that of Korea.
This strengthens by eliminating other potential causes of the aurora borealis. Only sunspot activity could have created an aurora borealis viewable in Korea, so there must have been sunspot activity before the Korean sighting.
D
Because it is impossible to view sunspots with the naked eye under typical daylight conditions, the sighting recorded by John of Worcester would have taken place under unusual weather conditions such as fog or thin clouds.
This has no clear impact on John’s sighting. This simply gives more details about when his sighting would have occurred.
E
John of Worcester’s account included a drawing of the sunspots, which could be the earliest illustration of sunspot activity.
The fact John drew sunspots doesn’t help connect the Korean sighting of aurora borealis with John’s sighting of sunspots. What do drawings have to do with the aurora borealis? Nothing.

11 comments