#15- Singletary: We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object

[ihavas]

Hi- Could you explain how to find the correct answer to #15? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

We'd love to help, but before we jump in, why don't you tell us something about your thought process here? How did you analyze the question, what did you prephrase, what answer choices looked attractive to you? We'll be able to give you a more helpful answer if we have a better idea of where you are coming from in your approach to the question.

Get back to us with some elaboration, and then we will get back to you with some helpful (I hope!) info.

Thanks!

[adlindsey]

A and C give way better descriptions of the statement. It's evidence the city misunderstands, and evidence about ineffectiveness. I don't see how the statement in B is used as support for the city's motivation.

[David Boyle]

A and C give way better descriptions of the statement. It's evidence the city misunderstands, and evidence about ineffectiveness. I don't see how the statement in B is used as support for the city's motivation.

Hello adlindsey,

"If the city wanted to become a safer place for cyclists, it would . . . educate drivers about bicycle safety. Thus, . . . the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than with bicyclists’ actual safety." So the author adduces driver education as a superior alternative to bike helmets, in trying to show the city doesn't really care about safety, which goes with answer B.
Answer A is wrong because "the claim that the city misunderstands the steps necessary for ensuring bicyclists’ safety" doesn't actually exist. The author never claims that the city is too stupid to understand.
Answer C is wrong because "the total ineffectiveness of the helmet ordinance" is not claimed by the author. Say, maybe, bike helmets do give a tiny little bit more safety, though less safety than bike lanes or driver education. Then, it would be hard to say that the ordinance was totally ineffective.

Hope this helps,
David

[bk1111]

Hi. I am having trouble with a couple things in this problem. I narrowed it down to B and E, ultimately choosing E.

First, I had a hard time identifying the conclusion. Is it the first or last sentence of the stimulus? I identified the last sentence as the conclusion, and on the basis of that, chose E.

The last sentence states that the city is more concerned "with the appearances of safety" than the actual safety of the bicyclists. E seemed to corroborate that since it talks about the city's overriding interest with its public image. Thanks for your input.

[Kristina Moen]

Hi bk,

I identified the first sentence as the conclusion. "We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object to the city’s new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets." The conclusion answers the question "Why is the author telling me this?" So here, why is the author telling us about about the motivations of the city? To explain why he objects to the ordinance.

The author uses conditional reasoning to explain why he objects to ordinance. "We object to X. If the city really cared about safety, it would not do X, it would do Y. But instead it's doing X, so it doesn't care."

Look at the language in answer choice (E): "overriding interest in public image." We don't really get that from stimulus. The stimulus says that "passage of the ordinance reveals that the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than with bicyclists’ actual safety." Further, the part in question is "educate drivers in bicycle safety," which is offered as one thing the city might do to make the city a safer place for cyclists. But it is not an illustration of the city's interest in public image. In fact, it is something the city is not doing. But it does serve as partial support for a claim about their motivation, because they are not doing it, so it must mean they don't truly care about safety.

[bk1111]

Hi bk,

I identified the first sentence as the conclusion. "We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object to the city’s new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets." The conclusion answers the question "Why is the author telling me this?" So here, why is the author telling us about about the motivations of the city? To explain why he objects to the ordinance.

The author uses conditional reasoning to explain why he objects to ordinance. "We object to X. If the city really cared about safety, it would not do X, it would do Y. But instead it's doing X, so it doesn't care."

Look at the language in answer choice (E): "overriding interest in public image." We don't really get that from stimulus. The stimulus says that "passage of the ordinance reveals that the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than with bicyclists’ actual safety." Further, the part in question is "educate drivers in bicycle safety," which is offered as one thing the city might do to make the city a safer place for cyclists. But it is not an illustration of the city's interest in public image. In fact, it is something the city is not doing. But it does serve as partial support for a claim about their motivation, because they are not doing it, so it must mean they don't truly care about safety.

Hi, I redid this question again and still got it wrong. I selected A. Can someone please break down the argument for me and explain the wording of the answer choices? I feel this is where I am getting lost. I don't understand how, as stated in B, the portion about drivers education serves as partial support for the city's motivation? The city's motivation for what?

[Adam Tyson]

Here are my thougts, bk1111. The argument can be broken down this way (and I will be paraphrasing along the way:

First premise: Concern with safety wouldn't lead to a helmet requirement
Second premise: Concern with safety would lead to bicycle lanes and driver education
Third premise: The city did require helmets (this fact is built into the first sentence)
Subordinate conclusion: The city is not concerned with safety but only with the appearance of safety
Main conclusion: We object

(Some might say that "we object" is a statement of fact outside of the argument itself, since the author isn't really trying to prove that they object but only show why they object. That view of the argument would lead to treating the subordinate conclusion as the main conclusion. In this case, no harm would come from making that analysis since the answer didn't depend on making that fine line distinction.)

The conclusion about what the city is concerned with is all about their motivation for passing the ordinance that is being discussed. They passed because they wanted to look good, not because they wanted to actually help - that's what the author is claiming. Motivation is at the heart of that claim.

We got asked about the second premise. Answer B tells us that it is a premise that supports the conclusion about motivation, which is either a subordinate conclusion or, if you prefer the second analysis, the main conclusion. Either way, it is a conclusion about motive.

Answer A talks about the city misunderstanding, but our author never says that they misunderstand. The conclusion isn't saying they made an innocent mistake - it's much more cynical than that! The author is claiming that the city did what they did with intention, to look good. That isn't a misunderstanding, but a motivation. That's what makes answer B the better choice here.

[jaclyn.s]

Hello, reviving the question on this thread... I was between B and E and chose E.

Initially, I identified the last sentence in the stimulus as the conclusion but I see now how it is actually a subsidiary conclusion (it explains why the citizens object). Even with that I am still torn between B and E. I totally get how B is correct but I do not understand why E is incorrect. (Looking back, I guess that I should just go with the answer choice that def doesn't look wrong...). I felt that the stimulus does support that the city cares more about its public image ("appearance of safety"). Can someone please further explain? Thanks!

Hi bk,

I identified the first sentence as the conclusion. "We of Citizens for Cycling Freedom object to the city’s new ordinance requiring bicyclists to wear helmets." The conclusion answers the question "Why is the author telling me this?" So here, why is the author telling us about about the motivations of the city? To explain why he objects to the ordinance.

The author uses conditional reasoning to explain why he objects to ordinance. "We object to X. If the city really cared about safety, it would not do X, it would do Y. But instead it's doing X, so it doesn't care."

Look at the language in answer choice (E): "overriding interest in public image." We don't really get that from stimulus. The stimulus says that "passage of the ordinance reveals that the city is more concerned with the appearance of safety than with bicyclists’ actual safety." Further, the part in question is "educate drivers in bicycle safety," which is offered as one thing the city might do to make the city a safer place for cyclists. But it is not an illustration of the city's interest in public image. In fact, it is something the city is not doing. But it does serve as partial support for a claim about their motivation, because they are not doing it, so it must mean they don't truly care about safety.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Jaclyn,

Kristina's explanation gets at the issue you identify: the word "overriding" implies something more extreme than that the interest in public image is more important than just one other concern. It implies public image is the interest that dominates in every decision. Note the dictionary definition of overriding: "more important than any other considerations."

Kristina also raises another (admittedly very subtle) problem with answer choice E, which is with how it describes what the statement in the stimulus is an "illustration" (i.e. example) of. The stimulus's statement about driver education "illustrates" a counterfactual: it's an example of what the city would be doing if it were actually concerned with safety. To "illustrate" (or, provide an example of) the city's interest in its public image, the statement would have to "show" an instance of the city promoting its public image. For example, a statement about the city promoting its greatness through a marketing campaign, or festival, or the like. A difficult answer choice to eliminate for sure!

I hope this helps!

Jeremy