|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 477
Location: Lungi
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
A City police department plans to set up a special task [#permalink]
 01 Apr 2004, 06:59
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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
drunken drivers.
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
state laws.
e. Putting together the special task force will require a 10%
increase in the police department's budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 716
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
My Answer is B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Oct 2003
Posts: 225
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
(B)
_________________
A 750 aspirant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
B)
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 417
Location: USA
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Agree B!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 245
Location: illinois
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
was debating between B and C.
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??
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
monarc wrote: was debating between B and C.
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)?
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 477
Location: Lungi
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
yes B again.
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.
rgds,
bolti as Kpadma calls me
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1963
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 0
|
This question is debatable. There are two weak points in the statement given by the objecting council.
How do we refute the city council's claim. Either show that the data it is providing as evidence is false or the consequence of the truthfullness of that data is pretty serious.
B says majority of the accidents caused are by drunk drivers. What if there were only 10 accidents in a year.
C says the numbers provided by the city council about no of drunk drivers is wrong.
One can always come out and say even if those 10 accidents can be stopped then it is worth the try.
I liked C better.
I have seen a similar Q in Kaplan about diceases caused pollution and the answer is similar to one provided by C where the data provided as evidence is invalidated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
