Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
A City police department plans to set up a special task [#permalink]
01 Apr 2004, 05:59
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
A City police department plans to set up a special task force to
identify and prosecute drunk drivers. A City council member objects,
claiming that the expense of putting together the task force is not
justified because less than one out of ten thousand drivers on the
street on a given night are driving while intoxicated.
Which of the following , if true , most weakens the argument made by
the objecting council member?
a. Similar task forces in other cities have not brought about
increases in convictions for drunken driving.
b. More than half of the auto accidents in the city are caused by
c. Most drunken drivers are identified as such only after they have
already caused an accident.
d. Strong penalties for drunken driving are already written into
e. Putting together the special task force will require a 10%
increase in the police department's budget.
B says that more than half of the accident are done by drunk drivers.
C says that We know that they are drunk ONLY after they have already caused the accident.
C Sounds better doesn't it??? anybody explain??
C is the opposite of what we are looking for and actually strengthen the argument of the objecting council member. If we know only after the accident that drivers are drunk, then what is the use of setting up a task force to identify them (after the accident is perpetrated)?
The correct response is B . The councilman's objection is based on
the fact that very few of the drivers in the city drive while
intoxicated. However, if the majority of the auto accidents inthe
city are caused by drunk drivers, as described in choice B, then the
city's most effective strategy for reducing auto accidents is to
combat drunk driving. Choices A and E would not weaken the council
member's argument. Choice C would be an argument in favor of the task
force, but does not establish, as choice B does, that getting drunk
drivers off the streets would actually produce a measurable benefit.
Choice D is irrelevant.