Loading...
Ten years ago, the country of Vorland adopted new automobile safety regulations requiring airbags and better seat belts in all new automobiles. Since then, the annual number of drivers and passengers hospitalized overnight or longer for injuries sustained in automobile accidents has steadily declined. Clearly, the regulations have made Vorland's automobiles safer for drivers and passengers who are involved in accidents.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Ten years ago, the country of Vorland adopted new automobile safety regulations requiring airbags and better seat belts in all new automobiles. |
|
| Since then, the annual number of drivers and passengers hospitalized overnight or longer for injuries sustained in automobile accidents has steadily declined. |
|
| Clearly, the regulations have made Vorland's automobiles safer for drivers and passengers who are involved in accidents. |
|
The argument follows a classic cause-and-effect structure: first we learn about a change (new safety regulations), then we see what happened afterward (fewer hospitalizations), and finally the author concludes that the change caused the improvement.
The automobile safety regulations have made Vorland's cars safer for people involved in accidents.
The author uses a 'before and after' approach - showing that hospitalizations declined after the safety regulations were put in place, then concludes this proves the regulations caused the improvement. The logical link assumes that the timing connection (regulations first, then fewer hospitalizations) proves causation.
Assumption - We need to find what the argument must assume to be true for the conclusion to follow logically from the premises
The argument makes a causal claim that safety regulations (airbags and better seat belts) caused the decline in hospitalizations. The key precision points are: 'steadily declined' (frequency), 'safer for drivers and passengers' (quality), and the causal connection between regulations and outcomes
For assumption questions, we identify ways the conclusion could be falsified while respecting the given facts. The argument assumes a causal relationship between safety regulations and fewer hospitalizations. We need to think about what could break this causal chain - like alternative explanations for the decline, changes in the driving population, or issues with how safety is being measured
'The citizens of Vorland generally obey all national and local speed limits.' This isn't something the argument must assume. The argument is about whether safety equipment (airbags and seat belts) makes accidents less severe, not about preventing accidents through speed compliance. Even if people don't always follow speed limits, the safety equipment could still be reducing injury severity when accidents do occur.
'Of the patients treated at hospitals in Vorland, the percentage treated being treated for injuries sustained in automobile accidents has decreased in the past ten years.' We don't need to assume this. Even if car accident injuries stayed the same percentage of total hospital cases, the absolute number of serious car accident hospitalizations could still have declined due to the safety regulations. The argument only needs the actual number to have decreased, not the percentage relative to other hospital cases.
'The safety improvements required by the regulations have not significantly affect the price of new automobiles.' Price effects are irrelevant to whether the safety equipment actually works to reduce injuries. The argument is about effectiveness of safety features, not their economic impact. Whether cars got more expensive or not doesn't affect whether airbags and seat belts reduce hospitalization rates.
'There has been no increase in speed limits on Vorland's major highways over the past ten years.' While speed limit changes could affect accident severity, this isn't something the argument must assume. Even if speed limits increased, the safety equipment could still be providing protection that results in fewer serious injuries requiring hospitalization.
'Over the past ten years, there has not been a steady decline in the annual number of drivers and passengers involved in automobile accidents in Vorland.' This is what the argument must assume. If the total number of people involved in accidents was steadily declining, then the decline in hospitalizations might simply be due to fewer accidents happening, not because the cars became safer. The argument needs to assume this alternative explanation isn't true - that roughly the same number of accidents are occurring, but they're resulting in fewer serious injuries thanks to the safety regulations.