theanswer21324
Thanks Received: 0
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 27
Joined: August 09th, 2013
 
 
 

Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by theanswer21324 Sun Sep 08, 2013 5:00 pm

The correct answer is (A), but just wondering how is this not simply a repeat of the earlier premises? One of the premises is "for the same reason jurisdictions should also require helmets for horseback riders", and the reason alluded here seems to be about cost savings as well. Hence, if you add (A), it sounds redundant. Thanks.
 
hyewonkim89
Thanks Received: 4
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 122
Joined: December 17th, 2012
 
 
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by hyewonkim89 Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:21 pm

Hello theanswer21324,

The stimulus actually never states that medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is a financial drain on tax funds.

It states that nonhelmeted motorcycle-accident victims' medical care results in a large cost to taxpayers.

The conclusion states that horseback riders should be forced to wear helmets to achieve similar cost reductions.

We can make an assumption here that horseback riding victims' medical care must be a financial drain on tax funds.

If you negate (A), it completely destroys the argument.

"Medical care for victims of horseback-riding accidents is NOT a financial drain on tax funds."

If this is true, why would they care to enact helmet laws on horseback-riders? If it isn't a financial drain on tax funds, enacting such laws wouldn't reduce much cost to taxpayers.

I hope this helps.
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 169
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by WaltGrace1983 Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:46 pm

The big thing to consider here is how the conclusion starts:

Horseback-riding accidents are even more likely to cause serious head injury than motorcycle accidents are
→
(For the reason of cost reductions) jurisdictions should also require helmets for horseback riders

The argument is saying that the head injuries resulting from motorcycle accidents are having an adverse effect on the taxpayers, namely that they are having to pay for the head injuries of those that sustain them. Since making the motorcyclists wear helmets has reduced the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries, the author is concluding that we should do the same for horse-back riders. However, what if the horse-back riders' head injuries don't have anything to do with taxes? Maybe these riders have to fund medical care for their injuries completely by themselves. (A) is answering to these possibilities by saying that medical care for the horseback-riders actually does take money from the tax funds.
 
testtakernce
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 4
Joined: July 31st, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by testtakernce Sat Aug 01, 2015 6:30 pm

Hello, is the sentence in the stimulus, "Juridcitions that have enacted motorcycle helmet laws have reduced the incidence and severity of accident-related head injuries thereby.... taxpayers" a subsidiary conclusion?


Thanks in advance!
User avatar
 
rinagoldfield
Thanks Received: 275
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 390
Joined: December 13th, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by rinagoldfield Sat Aug 08, 2015 5:14 pm

Hi theanswer,

Nope, that’s a premise! Note that it is presented as a fact, not as an opinion drawn from some other facts.

--Rina
 
obobob
Thanks Received: 1
Jackie Chiles
Jackie Chiles
 
Posts: 38
Joined: January 21st, 2018
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by obobob Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:56 am

rinagoldfield wrote:Hi theanswer,

Nope, that’s a premise! Note that it is presented as a fact, not as an opinion drawn from some other facts.

--Rina


Hi Rina, I am having trouble understanding how the part of the statement is presented as a fact, not as an opinion.
I took this sentence as a subjective suggestion since it says "other jurisdictions *should* enact motorcycle-helmet laws," so I was actually thinking that the sentence is an intermediate conclusion. Even if this "should" does not mean to express an opinion, I thought the last sentence is some kind of conclusion supported by all the background information about motorcycle-helmet laws provided earlier in the stimulus, so an intermediate conclusion.

I've always have thought of premises are a set of facts that support the main conclusion of an argument and intermediate conclusions as some subjective/objective arguments/establishments that 1) are supported by at least one other premise in an argument and 2) support the main conclusion.

I am not sure if I am missing or understanding any concept incorrectly?
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 2902
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4202
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q7 - head injury motorcycle horses

by ohthatpatrick Wed Feb 06, 2019 3:37 pm

I think that you and Rina are talking about two different sentences.

She was saying that the sentence "Jurisdictions that have .... " is a premise.
It is. It's an empirical fact; areas that have enacted a certain policy of measured a certain result in terms of injury incidence and cost savings.

The sentence you seem to be talking about is the following one,
"Therefore, to achieve ...".
That is definitely a conclusion. "should" almost always indicates an opinion, and this opinion is supported by the first three sentences.

Whether we'd categorize the "Therefore" sentence as a subsidiary conclusion or just a separate conclusion is gonna kinda get to the splitting hairs level.

In a sense, yes, it's totally a subsidiary conclusion because it IS a conclusion and it is a step along the way in reaching the conclusion about the horseback riding helmet law.

But ... saying "we should enact motorcycle helmet laws" is not really a reason for why "we should enact horseback riding helmet laws".

We're just FEELING that it's like a subsidiary conclusion because the author is drawing both of his "should" conclusions for the same reasons:
- the helmet law could save taxpayers money on caring for head injuries

I could similarly say that Paris and Venice are both unforgettable cities, rich in culture.

But we wouldn't argue
"You should go to Paris before you die"
why?
"Because you should go to Venice before you die"

Hope this helps.