Paragraph : In order to determine automobile insurance premiums for a driver,…
2024
Paragraph : In order to determine automobile insurance premiums for a driver, insurance companies calculate various risk factors; as the risk factors increase, so does the premium. Certain factors, such as the driver’s age and past accident history, play an important role in these calculations. Yet, these premiums should also increase with the number of miles that the driver drives. After all, a person’s chance of being involved in a mishap increases in proportion to the number of times that person drives.
Which one of the following, if true, most undermines the argument?
- A.
People who drive infrequently are more likely to be involved in accidents that occur on small roads than in highway accidents.
- B.
People who drive infrequently are less likely to follow rules for safe driving than are people who drive frequently.
- C.
People who drive infrequently are less likely to violate local speed limits than are people who drive frequently.
- D.
People who drive frequently are more likely to make long-distance trips in the course of a year than are people who drive infrequently.
Attempted by 5 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Concept:
A “weaken the argument” question gives a conclusion that is drawn from a stated premise via an unstated bridging assumption. To undermine such an argument, look for a new fact that attacks that assumption directly — typically by identifying a confounding factor that the premise-to-conclusion link overlooked, without denying the premise itself.
Application:
Here the premise is that accident probability rises in proportion to how often a person drives, and from this the argument concludes that premiums should also rise with the number of miles driven. This inference assumes that the described correlation between driving frequency and risk isn't offset by some other factor that varies systematically with frequency — in particular, that infrequent drivers aren't disproportionately careless for reasons unrelated to how often they drive.
The statement that people who drive infrequently are less likely to follow rules for safe driving than people who drive frequently supplies exactly such a confound. If infrequent drivers are less careful for this separate reason, their lower mileage need not translate into lower accident risk — which undercuts the basis for raising premiums specifically because of higher mileage.
Cross-check:
The small-roads-versus-highways detail tells us WHERE infrequent drivers' accidents happen, not whether they are less likely to have one at all — the frequency-risk correlation is untouched.
The speed-limit-compliance detail points to a confound running the OTHER way, toward infrequent drivers being safer for an additional reason — reinforcing rather than disturbing the case for their lower premiums.
The long-distance-trip detail describes a travel pattern, not accident risk per trip, so it has no bearing on whether risk tracks driving frequency.
Since only the safe-driving-compliance detail introduces a confound of this kind, it is the one that most undermines the argument.