Loading...
Motor-scooter dealers attribute a drastic decline in sales over the last few years to a new law requiring motor-scooter riders to wear helmets. Previously, helmets had been obligatory for motorcycle riders but not for motor-scooter riders-a difference that the dealers argue made scooters preferable for many customers. Safety advocates, however, dispute the dealers' explanation, pointing out that the law's introduction coincided with a large increase in the cost of mandatory insurance for both types of vehicle.
In evaluating the safety advocates' and the dealers' explanations, it would be most helpful to know which of the following?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Motor-scooter dealers attribute a drastic decline in sales over the last few years to a new law requiring motor-scooter riders to wear helmets. |
|
| Previously, helmets had been obligatory for motorcycle riders but not for motor-scooter riders-a difference that the dealers argue made scooters preferable for many customers. |
|
| Safety advocates, however, dispute the dealers' explanation, pointing out that the law's introduction coincided with a large increase in the cost of mandatory insurance for both types of vehicle. |
|
We start with dealers giving their explanation for falling scooter sales (helmet law), then we get their reasoning (scooters used to be more appealing without helmet requirements), and finally safety advocates offer a different explanation (insurance cost increases happened at the same time)
There's no single main conclusion here - this passage presents two competing explanations for the decline in scooter sales without deciding which one is correct
This isn't a traditional argument structure. Instead, it's a 'he said, she said' setup where we have dealers giving one explanation (helmet law caused sales decline) supported by their reasoning (helmets made scooters less attractive), followed by safety advocates offering an alternative explanation (insurance costs increased). The passage leaves us with two possible causes without resolving which one is actually responsible
Evaluate - We need to find information that would help us determine which explanation (dealers' helmet law theory vs. safety advocates' insurance cost theory) better accounts for the decline in scooter sales
The dealers claim the helmet law caused the sales decline, while safety advocates claim rising insurance costs were the real culprit. Both events happened at the same time, making it hard to tell which one actually caused the problem
For evaluate questions, we need to think of information that would strengthen one explanation while weakening the other, or help us separate the effects of these two factors that happened simultaneously. We want scenarios that would tip the scales toward one explanation or the other
Whether some scooter riders already wore helmets voluntarily doesn't help us determine which of the two explanations (helmet law vs. insurance costs) better accounts for the overall sales decline. Even if some riders wore helmets voluntarily, the law still created a new requirement for all riders, and this information doesn't help us separate the effects of the helmet law from the insurance cost increases.
Whether insurance costs for other motor vehicles increased at the same rate is somewhat relevant, but it doesn't directly help us evaluate the competing explanations about scooter sales. We need information that helps us distinguish between the helmet law effect and the insurance cost effect specifically for vehicles similar to scooters.
Comparing accident rates between scooters and motorcycles doesn't address the core issue of what caused the sales decline. This information about safety statistics doesn't help us determine whether the helmet law or insurance costs were responsible for fewer people buying scooters.
The comparison between imported and domestic scooter sales doesn't help evaluate the two explanations. Both imported and domestic scooters would be equally affected by both the helmet law and insurance cost increases, so this distinction doesn't help us determine which factor was more influential.
This is the most helpful information because motorcycles already required helmets before the law changed, so motorcycle sales would be unaffected by the helmet requirement that dealers blame for scooter sales decline. However, motorcycles would be affected by insurance cost increases just like scooters. If motorcycle sales also declined during this period, it would support the safety advocates' insurance explanation. If motorcycle sales remained stable, it would support the dealers' helmet explanation. This directly helps us separate and evaluate the two competing explanations.