Reporter: The municipal department spends a lot of money on constructi...
Reporter: The municipal department spends a lot of money on constructing concrete roads. It is difficult to fathom the department’s choice to build concrete roads, when it can easily lay cheaper roads using permeable materials. Therefore, a petition should be written to the government to stop laying roads using concrete and start laying roads using permeable paving materials.
Which of the following, if known, would be most relevant in assessing the reporter’s argument?
Argument Analysis
Pre-Thinking
Conclusion Clarification
N/A
Pre-Thinking Approach
In order to evaluate the argument, we’ll pre think assumptions and ask questions which can tell us whether they are correct or not. To do so, let’s see how we can falsify the conclusion or intermediate conclusion. Let’s look at the logical structure, focusing on linkages 1 and 2. We will understand the conditions under which the conclusion and intermediate conclusion are falsified. The assumption then will be that these conditions don’t exist. Also note that as we focus on a particular linkage, we will keep the other linkage in mind as well.
Linkage#1
- Falsification Condition: What if there are other reasons which make the selection of concrete as the material for building roads quite natural? It could be that roads built with concrete allow vehicles to ply more smoothly than those built with other materials. If this were true, then the intermediate conclusion will be falsified.
- Assumption: There are no other significant considerations besides the price of the material when it comes to the construction of roads.
Linkage#2
- Falsification Condition: What if there are other significant expenditures that the department saves on when building roads from concrete? For example, it could be that the wear and tear of roads built using concrete is low. In that case the overall costs of building and maintaining these roads could be lower than that in the case of roads built using PPM. If this were true, then there would no need to send a petition to government.
- Assumption: The overall cost benefits of PPM roads are higher than of roads built using concrete.
With this pre-thinking in mind, let's look at the option statements.
Answer Choices
A
Whether the municipal department’s previous plans have been cost effective
Incorrect - Irrelevant
This option talks about other plans of the municipal department whereas the reporter’s conclusion deals only with laying roads.
B
Whether the process of laying roads with concrete is similar to that of laying roads using permeable paving materials
Incorrect - Irrelevant
This option compares the process of laying roads using the two different materials, but we don’t know whether similarity of processes is even important.
C
Whether the reporter supports the present government or is a proponent of the opposition party
Incorrect - Irrelevant
This option is completely irrelevant as it doesn’t help us evaluate the merits of the proposal.
D
Whether other states have been using the permeable materials to construct their roads
Incorrect - Irrelevant
This option doesn’t help us in evaluating the reporter’s proposal. Even if other states are not using permeable materials, they could still be a good substitute for concrete.
E
Whether the price the government has to pay for maintaining roads in good condition is more for roads paved using permeable paving materials versus roads paved with concrete
Correct
This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #2. If the answer to this question is: yes, government needs to spend more for maintaining roads paved using permeable paving materials in a good condition, then the reporter’s argument isn’t valid as the overall cost of building and maintaining roads using permeable paving materials can be much higher than in the case of roads where concrete is used.
But if the answer to this question is: no, government doesn’t need to spend more for maintaining roads paved using permeable paving materials in a good condition, then the reporter’s argument is valid as the government could save money on building and maintaining these roads.