shantascherla wrote:
Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses. Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.
Which of the following would most likely be cited by a supporter of the argument?
Urban areas do not pose additional problems for the effective operation of wireless networks.
Wireless networks work far better where population density is low.
Iceland, a very rural country, successfully uses wireless networks.
The expenses of wireless transmission in areas with large buildings is much higher.
Poor neighborhoods have less access to cable internet than do educators or businesses
The answer is A.
In my analysis the most support for the argument "rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks" comes from b rather than a
Can somebody please explain this
shanta,
The conclusion of this argument is: Wide dissemination of wireless networks in cities is a practical way to meet the needs of city households, schools and businesses.
The premise of the argument is: Rural communities have found that wireless networks are both more reliable and cheaper than land-based networks.
Thus, we are concluding that wireless networks will meet the needs of cities because they have met the needs of rural communities. The assumption we must make is that rural areas and cities are comparable in terms of our ability to implement these networks and make them work.
We are asked to choose an answer choice that strengthens the argument. A supporter of the argument will affirm this assumption. Answer choice A does this nicely.
Answer choice B actually goes AGAINST the conclusion--it says that wireless networks work much better in areas where population is low. Thus, it casts doubt on the idea that wireless networks will be a good solution for cities.