More pedestrian injuries occur at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than occur at...

Annie on October 23, 2019

@Ryan-Mahabir,

The stimulus states that more injuries occur at the crosswalks with stripping and lights than at those without such markings. It then states that this means the stripping and lights are a waste of money. To reach this conclusion, the stimulus must be assuming that all crosswalks are the same, and that they are all equally dangerous. This assumption is a gap in the argument's logic, and makes the argument vulnerable to criticism. So, you're looking for an answer choice which points out this gap.

(A) is correct. It points out that the argument fails to consider that all crosswalks are not the same and that some may be more dangerous than others.

(B) is incorrect. The best way to eliminate this answer choice is to look at the phrasing. The stimulus states that more pedestrian injuries occur at the well marked crosswalks, whereas the answer choice states that the markings fail to reduce the number of injuries which occur. We don't actually know that the safety features fail to reduce the number of injuries, just that more injuries occur when they're present. This could be because the crosswalks in question are more dangerous (as answer A points out).