Question

you are writing a response to a newspaper editorial urging your city to install a red light camera to reduce traffic accidents at a dangerous intersection. which part of the editorial would provide the best evidence for your thesis that the writer is wrong to claim that the cameras make intersections safer? pointing out that the study the writer cites as proof that red light cameras reduce the number of broad side crashes also reports they increase the number of rear end collisions claiming that the writer’s stated job as a traffic officer is a conflict of interest using the writer’s statistics on the number of tickets issued by red light cameras at similar intersection to suggest the real motive is to raise money from fines countering the writer’s story about the number of accidents and near misses he has seen at the intersection with your observation that you haven’t seen many crashes there

Explanation:

To refute the writer's claim that red - light cameras make intersections safer, we need evidence that shows the cameras do not have a safety - enhancing effect. The option "Pointing out that the study the writer cites as proof that red light cameras reduce the number of broad side crashes also reports they increase the number of rear end collisions" provides such evidence. It shows that while the study claims a reduction in one type of crash, it also reports an increase in another, which undermines the claim that the cameras make intersections safer. The other options either attack the writer's credibility (conflict of interest) or use anecdotal evidence (personal observations) or suggest a non - safety motive (raising money from fines), which are not as strong as presenting contradictory evidence from the same study the writer used.

Answer:

Pointing out that the study the writer cites as proof that red light cameras reduce the number of broad side crashes also reports they increase the number of rear end collisions