Multiple choice

Amusement parks create an illusion of safety for both children and their parents. Normally conscientious parents will leave children at an amusement park, not realizing the risks they are taking. Understaffing, broken or unguarded rides, and children who are too small for certain rides all increase the likelihood of accidents. Parents must be present to ensure that their children are safe Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the author's argument?.

  1. Understaffing, broken rides, and unenforced height and weight requirements for rides are the fault of the amusement park, not the parent.

  2. Some parents who would leave their children at an amusement park are unlikely to ensure their children's safety even if present.

  3. The overwhelming majority of accidents to children at amusement parks occur when parents are with their children.

  4. Most of the injuries that children suffer at amusement parks are the result of falls or collisions with other children.

  5. Unaccompanied children are not permitted on most amusement park rides.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
C Correct answer
Explanation

(3) THE CONCLUSION: Parents should stay with their children at amusement parks. THE EVIDENCE: Amusement parks are dangerous, for the various reasons listed. The problem is injuries to children; the solution is for parents to remain with the little tykes. There are basically two ways a choice will weaken this argument: Either it'll show that the problem doesn't exist or it'll show that the solution won't work. With time, you'll learn to see and expect these patterns. (3) strongly implies that the policy won't work. If nearly all of the kids have been injured in the company of their parents, it's hard to see how having parents around makes anything better.

Keep practicing — related questions