City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Jan 2017, 04:41

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 67
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 10

City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 22:23
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

22% (02:10) correct 78% (01:17) wrong based on 8 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers to take a drivers' education course is a good one, because studies have shown that new drivers who complete drivers' education courses are much less likely to get into accidents. However, passing this law doesn't mean that we should repeal our city's existing law requiring new drivers to hang a "New Driver" sign from their back window. Our city's drivers will start assuming that all drivers are safe drivers because of the courses, and they won't be extra careful when driving around new drivers. But despite the improvement in their driving due to the courses, new drivers are still much more likely to cause accidents than are experienced drivers, and the drivers around them need to be extra wary in order to avoid accidents, so removing the signs will lead to more accidents.

1 The first provides the basis for a plan, and the second endorses that plan
2 The first states a cause-and-effect relationship that the speaker believes will happen again in the case under consideration, while the second acknowledges an exception to that cause-and-effect relationship.
3 The first is a general principle, while the second is a specific application of that principle.
4 The first suggests the positive impact of a decision on the issue at hand, while the second states a belief that other factors will outweigh its positive impact
5 The first acknowleges a weakness in the speaker's argument, while the second states his argument

I am very poor at boldface Q's and I need some assistance.

Can anyone plz help me with the Q and also give me some tips on boldface Q's.

Thanks
If you have any questions
New!
Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Feb 2011
Posts: 285
Concentration: General Management, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: HBS '14 (A)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V47
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 188 [0], given: 13

Re: CR - city council member [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jun 2011, 23:01
In a gist, the stimulus states this: new law means new drivers takes a driving course, and there is proof this will reduce likelihood of accidents. does that mean there is no need of putting a 'new driver' sign? No, because thet are still more likely to be involved in accidents than experienced drivers.
1 The first provides the basis for a plan, and the second endorses that plan: No. The first part does provide the basis of the plan of starting tarining for new drivers. (studies which show their effectiveness) but second part doesnt endorse that plan - it talks of a different matter- hanging new driver signs or not.
2 The first states a cause-and-effect relationship that the speaker believes will happen again in the case under consideration, while the second acknowledges an exception to that cause-and-effect relationship. this is correct. first underlined portion states that courses mean less accidents, and second part states that even then compared to experienced drivers, accident likelihood is more. thus first states a cause and effect relationship - training leads to less likelihood of accidents. and second provides exception- that there is still more likelihood of accidents compared to experienced drivers.
3 The first is a general principle, while the second is a specific application of that principle. If first is general - implication of some studies- so is second- another comment on likelihood of accidents. there is no where any specific case being talked of.
4 The first suggests the positive impact of a decision on the issue at hand, while the second states a belief that other factors will outweigh its positive impact. While the first does highlight through the support of studies that the likelilhood of accidents would be reduced because of training; the second is not bringing in any new factors to outweigh the positive effect - the second is saying that even with less likelihood, some likelihood still remains.
5 The first acknowleges a weakness in the speaker's argument, while the second states his argument. this is clearly wrong - first is not weakness, but support data used. and second is not his argument.
Re: CR - city council member   [#permalink] 15 Jun 2011, 23:01
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers 5 21 Jan 2012, 11:24
1 If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city 24 10 Nov 2009, 02:49
If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city 10 28 Jul 2009, 10:29
If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city 8 15 Sep 2007, 03:59
If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city 4 23 Jul 2007, 12:02
Display posts from previous: Sort by