We're told that people enjoy the appearance of rugged trucks. However, despite how tough they look, they actually aren't required to meet the safety standards that other cars have to make. Therefore, the argument concludes that people who drive these trucks are more likely to be injured in high-impact accident than a driver of a car that has to meet the government safety standards would be.
The question asks, "The argument depends on the assumption that..."
This question is a strengthen with a necessary premise one. We're looking for the assumption that, if false, would wreck the argument. We can use the negation test to see whether or not an answer choice is required for the argument. If the negation of an answer choice makes the argument fall apart, then we know that that particular answer choice is required by the argument.
Based on the stimulus, we know that trucks don't have to have the same safety measures that cars do. However, we still don't know whether or not the trucks are really less safe because the argument is making the assumption that trucks aren't as durable as cars that have to meet the safety standards. It's assuming that if a truck maker doesn't have to meet certain safety standards, then it will fall below these safety standards and won't meet them. However, for all we know, the truck manufacturers could still make the trucks really safe even if they aren't required to.
(E) says, "light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards"
The negation of (E) is that light utility trucks are as likely to meet the car safety standards as are cars that are subject to the standards. If (E)'s negation were true, the argument would be wrecked because if these trucks are just as likely to meet the safety standards as the cars, then it casts serious doubt on the argument's conclusion that a driver of one of the trucks is more likely to be injured in a high-impact accident than a driver of one of the cars.
From this, we know that (E) as it's written is a required assumption for the argument, so this is the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
Samantha-AlexisJune 3, 2019
I was able to narrow my answer choices down to answer A and answer E. I now understand why answer E is correct, but why is answer A incorrect?
RaviJune 4, 2019
@Samantha-Alexis,
Happy to help. Let's look at (A).
(A) says, "the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks"
We already know that light trucks do not have the same safety standards that cars have, so it does not matter if light utility trucks have other standards that are weaker.
(A)'s negation says, "The government has established no safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks."
If (A)'s negation were true, the argument would not fall apart. This shows that (A) in its original form isn't necessary for the argument, so the argument is certainly not depending on this assumption. Thus, we can get rid of (A).
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!
