Excavation of the ancient city in Kourion CR

[Crisc419]

there shouldn't be.

for instance:

According to the Tristate Transportation Authority, making certain improvements to the main commuter rail line would increase ridership dramatically. The authority plans to finance these improvements over the course of five years by raising automobile tolls on the two highway bridges along the route the rail line serves. Although the proposed improvements are indeed needed, the authority's plan for securing the necessary funds should be rejected because it would unfairly force drivers to absorb the entire cost of something from which they receive no benefit.

Which of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on the effectiveness of the authority's plan to finance the proposed improvements by increasing bridge tolls?


(C)Between the time a proposed toll increase is announced and the time the increase is actually put into effect, many commuters buy more tokens than usual to postpone the effects of the increase.

(D)When tolls were last increased on the two bridges in question, almost 20 percent of the regular commuter traffic switched to a slightly longer alternative route that has since been improved.

choice D is correct, and i remember the explanation about choice C, is that it indeed weaken the plan, but D is best,because choice D weaken the plan more significantly.

thanks.

Cris

[RonPurewal]

nah, that answer is just wrong, since the transit authority will eventually get its money anyway.

the action of hoarding tokens by "many commuters" will postpone that a little bit, but, it will ultimately still happen. so, no real strike against the long-term effectiveness of the plan.

the correct answer, on the other hand, actually suggests that there will be a long-term reduction in the number of drivers coming through and paying tolls.

[JbhB682]

Hi - I thought C was a strengthener. Reason -

In the argument, archeologists are hypothesizing ____X happened because of Y, around 365 AD____

Option C, strengthens the archeologists hypothesis by saying -

Another entity now -- modern histories are also saying --- "Y did occur around 365 AD"

Does option C definitively prove that X happened because of Y ? NO
Does option C definitively prove that Y happened around 365 AD ? NO

But we are not looking to definitively prove the argument.

All we have to do in strengthen questions is to make whatever the archeologists are saying -- ' a bit more believable'

Option C does make whatever the archeologists are saying - a bit more believable

thoughts ?

analogy below --

[JbhB682]

JD's hypothesis - the Earth was born most likely because of a 'big bang' around 365 AD

Tiffany -- Yes, a 'big bang' definitely happened , around 365 AD.

Thus Tiffany is strengthening JD's hypothesis because whatever JD is saying is NOW a bit more believable.

Thats how I saw option C

[Whit Garner]

Option C does make whatever the archeologists are saying - a bit more believable ... thoughts ?

Watch the arguments in the Assumption Family VERY carefully - they can slip in assumptions very very quickly and we don't even see them!

Sentence 1: Excavation of the ancient city of Kourion on the island of Cyprus revealed a pattern of debris and collapsed buildings typical of towns devastated by earthquakes.
Translation: Kourion was destroyed by AN earthquake (we have no clue when from this alone).

Sentence 2 (2nd half): Archaeologists have hypothesized that the destruction was due to a major earthquake known to have occurred near the island in A.D.365.
Translation: There was AN earthquake near Kourion in AD365.

So CLEARLY the 365 quake was the one that destroyed Kourion. BUT WAIT - what if there had also been earthquakes in 360, 209, 100, etc etc etc. Can we be SURE that the quake that took out Kourion was the earthquake in AD365 and not the other years?? Maybe it was the one - or maybe they got really lucky and survived that one only to be taken out by a later earthquake. Or maybe they were already gone by then because of an earlier earthquake. We don't want to assume that because there was one earthquake nearby (that one time) that it MUST have been THAT earthquake.

So (C) confirms that there was AN earthquake (that the argument already confirmed by the way). We still don't know whether that was THE devastating earthquake that buried Kourion. Now if they'd said in (C) that the ONLY known earthquake to ever happen anywhere near Kourion was in AD365... okay, that would strengthen.

Hope this helps!

[JbhB682]

Hi Whitney - thx so much for clarifying.

this is the argument if i understand

Premise : An earthquake definitely hit Kurion
Claim : The earthquake of 365AD specifically caused this

(B) Something strange / Something wierd happened at Kurion in the year 365 AD

Just so crystalize my undersatnding, are these strengtheners ?

(option F) There were NO OTHER major events ( War, hurricane, floods) reported in 365 AD

I think (F) is NOT a strengthener because per the premise, we definitely know an Earthquake hit Kurion

[Whit Garner]

Hi Whitney - thx so much for clarifying.

this is the argument if i understand

Premise : An earthquake definitely hit Kurion
Claim : The earthquake of 365AD specifically caused this

(B) Something strange / Something wierd happened at Kurion in the year 365 AD

Just so crystalize my undersatnding, are these strengtheners ?

(option F) There were NO OTHER major events ( War, hurricane, floods) reported in 365 AD

I think (F) is NOT a strengthener because per the premise, we definitely know an Earthquake hit Kurion

Slight tweak -

Premise: Kurion looks like it was destroyed by AN earthquake. (damage typical of that)
Premise: There was AN earthquake in the area of Kurion in AD 365.
CONC: Clearly it was THAT earthquake that destroyed Kurion.

Assumptions:
- nothing else causes damage that looks like an earthquake
- it couldn't have been a different earthquake

To strengthen the argument - make either of those things true. Weaken it by making either potentially false.

So the example you offered as "F" doesn't really strengthen or weaken here. We don't know that damage from things such as war, hurricane, or flood would look like an earthquake. The answer choice would have to connect back to the damage looking like what we saw.

Hope this helps!