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

Naz on October 28, 2014

The argument states that more pedestrians get injured at crosswalks marked by both striping on the roadway and flashing lights than at crosswalks not so marked. From this, the argument concludes that these safety features are a waste of taxpayer money.

But, ask yourself why such crosswalks would be doubly marked? Possibly because these specific crosswalks are doubly dangerous? And if they were doubly dangerous, it makes sense that even with the double markings, more pedestrians would get injured there.

This is exactly what answer choice (A) says: "fails to consider that crosswalks marked by both striping and flashing lights are marked in this way precisely because they are the most dangerous ones."

Therefore, the taxpayer money going into these safety features is not necessarily a waste. These crosswalks are merely doubly dangerous and require double the markings.

Answer choice (D) states: "takes for granted that crosswalks with both striping and flashing lights have no other safety features."

The argument never assumes that these types of crosswalks have no other safety features. In fact, the only types of safety features discussed are striping on the roadway and flashing lights.

Remember, the extent of our knowledge is limited to the boundaries of the argument. Since the argument never mentions other types of safety features, we cannot infer that the argument assumes without evidence, i.e. takes for granted, that they did not exist.

Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.