(A) Correct.
This option is around the last gap that I identified above. (Are you wondering whether I thought of the gap after understanding this option? Are you accusing me of cheating? No problem. I did cheat đ
If most automobile travel is along the network of roads and streets that havenât grown in the last 20 years, we have a reason to believe that traffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years ago.
Thus, the conclusion that the complaints are unwarranted stands weakened.
(I believe that some people reject this option, saying that this option strengthens the argument. This way of going wrong is quite frequent in arguments that follow the structure of this argument – Present X, Then, conclude X is not the case. X in this case is âtraffic congestion is much worse now than it was 20 years agoâ.)
In such arguments, some people consider an option supporting X to be a strengthener. Thatâs wrong. If an option supports X, it goes against the conclusion that X is not the case. Thus, that option is a weakener.)
(B)Â Incorrect.
This option is in line with the second gap I identified. (I didnât cheat here đ
However, this option strengthens the argument rather than weakens it. If miles traveled per car hasnât changed much in the last 20 years, we have more reason to believe that the traffic congestion is NOT much worse now than it was 20 years ago.
(C) Incorrect.
This option talks about the present scenario (âhaveâ). It says that countryâs urban centers have good public transport systems. In such a case, people donât need to use their own automobiles to travel. Thus, instead of several automobiles (in case people travel in private automobiles), we have a bus or a train. So, this option indicates that there is perhaps less congestion than possible.
Thus, this option doesnât weaken the argument.
(D) Incorrect.Â
This option has no impact on the argument.
Letâs first try to understand the meaning of this option statement. The option talks about the average age of automobiles registered in the country.
How do we calculate the average age of automobiles registered in the country?
Weâll sum the ages of all the automobiles registered in the country and divide this number by the number of automobiles registered in the country.
This average represents how old an average automobile registered in the country is. For example, the average age of 5 years means that automobiles are not very old (perhaps, the old vehicles are destroyed), whereas the average age of 15 years means that automobiles, on average, are quite old.
Is the average age of the automobiles, or how old the automobiles are, relevant to the argument?
Not at all.
(Not that it would matter, but it is worth noticing that the average age of vehicles doesnât point to the number of vehicles on the road. The average age is a factor of how quickly old vehicles are discarded.)
(E) Incorrect.Â
Letâs consider the following statement:
E1: Motorists’ perceptions about traffic congestion are mainly based on traffic reports published by credible sources.
E1 is a weakener. By suggesting that motoristsâ complaint is based on some authentic source of information, this statement weakens the conclusion that their complaint is unwarranted.
However, option E has almost no impact since option E doesnât say that
- the traffic reports published by radio stations are credible.
- the traffic reports published by radio stations DO NOT differ in terms of whether traffic congestion has increased. (If they differ, then perhaps motoristsâ perception is mainly a result of their biased focus on reports saying that the congestion has increased) [Itâs important to be aware that option E says traffic reports inform about traffic congestion. The information could be that there is no traffic congestion.]
- motoristsâ perception of traffic congestion is not influenced much more by subjective factors than by these reports.
We can notice that while option E triggers you into thinking along the lines of E1, E is very different from E1. While E1 is a good weakener, E has almost no impact.