A city council is considering implementing a new bicycle-sharing program to reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions. A council member argues that since a similar program in a neighboring city successfully reduced both traffic and emissions, their city should expect similar positive outcomes. Which of the following, if true, would most seriously challenge the council member's argument?
- AThe neighboring city's bicycle-sharing program is heavily subsidized by local businesses, which may not be replicable.
- BThe neighboring city's public transportation system is significantly less developed than that of the city considering the program.
- CA recent survey shows that a majority of residents in the city considering the program own their own bicycles.
- DTraffic congestion and carbon emissions are pressing issues in both cities, leading to public support for solutions.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. The neighboring city's public transportation system is significantly less developed than that of the city considering the program.
The council member's argument is based on an analogy. To challenge an analogical argument, one must show a significant difference between the two cases that undermines the relevance of the comparison. If the neighboring city has poor public transport, then its residents might be more reliant on bike-sharing to replace car trips, whereas the city considering the program might have residents who would switch from public transport to bikes, not cars, thus having less impact on traffic and emissions.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This addresses the financial feasibility, not the effectiveness of the program in reducing traffic and emissions, which is the core of the analogy.
- C. While interesting, owning bicycles doesn't necessarily mean people won't use a sharing program, nor does it directly challenge the analogy's effectiveness.
- D. This suggests a common need, which would support the applicability of the solution, not challenge it.
Challenging Analogical Arguments
To challenge an argument based on analogy, one must demonstrate a critical difference between the two situations being compared that makes the analogy inappropriate or misleading.
- Focus on dissimilarity between the compared items.
- The difference must be relevant to the conclusion being drawn.
- A strong challenge shows the analogy's conclusion won't hold.
Memory trick: Analogies are like twins, but if they're not identical, the comparison fails.