Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)
Stimulus Breakdown:
Wide, empty roads make people drive worse. Similarly, fixing global warming with a crazy invention would make people pollute more.
Answer Anticipation:
Someone's been watching too much Who Shot Mr. Burns?
This argument features two analogous situations. In both, making a change that made people feel like there was less danger resulted in them taking bigger risks. The correct answer should reflect this.
Correct answer:
(A)
Answer choice analysis:
(A) Bingo. I might not pick this on the first pass because I wouldn't be convinced that wider roads would create a feeling of security, but checking back shows that the argument also mentions that these roads are free of obstructions, which would necessarily increase feelings of security. This answer is the principle underlying both sides of the analogy, so it's the answer.
(B) Out of scope. Neither problem is specifically mentioned as being human-created.
(C) Degree/bad generalization. "Inevitably" is too broad and strong, based on two examples and a conclusion that says something "might" happen.
(D) Degree. "Cannot" is too strong based on an argument that talks about what "might" happen.
(E) Out of scope. Neither problem is stated to be getting worse currently.
Takeaway/Pattern:
When an argument relies on an analogy and asks for the principle, the principle should work for both analogies.
#officialexplanation