Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Weakening Questions
Fatality percentages for road accidents involving motorized two-wheelers are higher than those involving four-wheelers yet lower than those involving non-motorized two wheelers. However, since the number of accidents involving non-motorized two-wheelers is so small, legislation around this form of transport is not crucial at this time. Therefore, the road safety association's proposal to alter the legislation so that it ceases to allow motorized two-wheelers the use of public roads will lead to a drastic decline in the overall number of fatal accidents.
Which of the following casts the most doubt on the possible success of the road safety association's proposal?
This answer choice only explains what the first premise has already told us - motorbikes are more dangerous (less safe) than cars. This statement cannot help us undermine the conclusion since it merely supports an already established part of the argument.
This answer choice deals with the issue of bicycle-related accidents. Since the conclusion is a proposal of a method to combat motorbike injuries, a statement that doesn't refer to motorbikes in anyway cannot help us undermine the conclusion.
This answer choice is beside the point. The road safety association's proposal involves one specific method - not allowing motorbikes on roads. Although other methods may also contribute to road safety, the conclusion focuses only on the value of a specific method.
This answer choice strengthens the conclusion, but you were supposed to weaken it. If the law would make people use motorbikes in safer conditions only, then it will indeed lead to less fatalities.
This answer choice weakens the logic of the proposal. If people who were not allowed to use motorcycles move to bicycles, then fatality numbers will rise, as we are told in the first premise that bicycle accidents have the highest fatality rate.