The councilors conclusion: "the enormous expenditures required for the law could not be justified by public safety needs, and that the money would be better spent on other programs"

In order to weaken it, we might look for one of the following:

- The expenditure would not be as "enormous" as suggested by the councilor.
- Public safety needs do justify the law.
- The money could not be better spent on other programs.

(B) This strengthens the argument, because the implication is that car accidents do not jeopardize public safety.
(C) Irrelevant information, as we already have empirical proof suggesting that 15% of accidents occur during snowy conditions. A comparison to other states is unecessary.
(D) This strengthens the argument, as it implies that everyone would have to be trained/retrained. It also implies that even though no one has this training, only 15% of accidents are as a result of winter driving. Does not weaken the argument in any way.
(E) This is the next best alternative, but it doesn't provide us with enough information. What if most fatalities occur during the summer months? What if they only have 1 fatality a year, while other states have none?

Answer (A) This directly weakens his argument, by suggesting that although only 15% of accidents occur during snowy conditions, more than 50% (majority) of fatal accidents occur when there is snow/ice on the ground. This weakens his argument most.
_________________

Please KUDOS generously if you feel I've been of service.

+1 A
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

A

Clearly weakens the argument.
_________________

Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. (Gandhi)

+1 A in 1:36.

Am still not clear why it is A ?

The argument states the fact that "The council member noted that over the past five years, fewer than fifteen percent of motor vehicle collisions in the state occurred when there was snow on the ground." But the option (A) tells that "The majority of car accidents in State Q involving death or serious injury in the last two years occurred when there was snow or ice on the road." Aren't we contradicting the premise or observation given in the argument?

What I know is to solve a CR question, we should not contradict or change the information given.
Please clarify
_________________

Didn't give up !!! Still Trying!!

The argument says that according to council member money should not be wasted on licensing for snow as the number of accidents have been few. Right after reading the question, we must ask:

1. what if all the accidents have happened in snow or
2. what if there could have been more accidents if training on snow was not provided.

Any option in alignment with these two choices will weaken the council member's conclusion. Option A aligns with doubt no 1.
_________________

If my post did a dance in your mind, send me the steps through kudos :)

My MBA journey at http://mbadilemma.wordpress.com/

The council member argued that because there were very few accidents in winter conditions, added expenditure for the law is unjustified.

So, to weaken the argument I was looking for something that justifies the added expenditure.

The majority of car accidents in State Q involving death or serious injury in the last two years occurred when there was snow or ice on the road. SOUNDS RIGHT (WEAKEN)
The majority of car accidents in State Q in any given year do not result in any personal injury, only property damage. STRENGTHEN
State Q, located in the northern portion of the country, experiences snow more often than any other state in the country. OUT OF SCOPE
Most drivers in State Q have no formal training in techniques for driving in the snow. OUT OF SCOPE
State Q has the highest number of motor vehicle fatalities in the entire country. IRRELEVANT