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.
The claim that insurance premiums should increase as the frequency with which a driver drives increases plays which one of the following roles in the argument?
- A.
A premise of the argument
- B.
The conclusion of the argument
- C.
Evidence offered in support of one of the premises
- D.
An assertion phrased to preclude an anticipated objection.
Attempted by 4 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
Concept
In critical-reasoning "role of a statement" questions, every claim in a short argument plays one of a few functions: a premise (a supporting statement that itself backs up some further point), evidence (a fact offered to reinforce a premise), a conclusion (the main point the argument as a whole is built to establish, and which other statements support), or a concession (a statement framed to head off an objection before it's raised, usually signalled by words like "admittedly" or "granted"). To classify any one claim, trace which way the support runs: does something else in the passage lean on this claim as backup, or does this claim receive backing from something else?
Application
The passage opens with a general principle: insurance premiums rise with risk factors.
It then gives two concrete risk factors already used in that calculation — a driver's age and past accident history.
It next puts forward the claim under examination: premiums should also rise with how often a person drives.
It closes with "After all, a person's chance of being involved in a mishap increases in proportion to the number of times that person drives" — a clause introduced specifically to justify the claim in step 3.
Tracing the direction of support: the age/accident-history statement and the general risk-premium principle are background context, not something the mileage claim is defending. The "after all" clause, in contrast, exists purely to support the mileage claim — support flows INTO it, not out of it. A statement that other material in the passage is marshalled to defend, rather than one that defends something else, is functioning as the argument's conclusion.
Cross-check
Delete the mileage claim and re-read the passage: what remains is a general rule plus two supporting factors and a stray fact about mishap frequency, with no point being advocated. Put the claim back, and the passage becomes a complete argument — general background, a claim being pushed, and a reason for it. That the passage falls apart into disconnected facts without the claim, and coheres into an argument with it, confirms it is the conclusion the passage is built around.