Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 16 Jan 2017, 17:16

### 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

# Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 05 Jan 2008
Posts: 701
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 413 [0], given: 0

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 01:18
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (01:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

14. Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the
increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate
of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are
passengers who do wear seat belts.

_________________

Persistence+Patience+Persistence+Patience=G...O...A...L

If you have any questions
New!
Director
Joined: 10 Sep 2007
Posts: 947
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 286 [0], given: 0

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 06:30
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
This does not weaken or strenthen argument. Just other piece of information. Nothing related.

B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the
increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
Insurance rate has nothing to do with the setence given above. Although it may seem emotional but it is not related.

C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
Airline industry is totally unrelated. Out of context just to confuse.

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate
of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
Seems good, as no law more accident. But not having mandatory seat belts laws does not mean passengers do not wear seat belt. But keep it for back up.

E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are
passengers who do wear seat belts.
Best pick. If passengers do not wear seat belts then chances of injury is more. So it seriously weaken the sentence. No need to go for backup option, as you have better than that.

I will go with E.
SVP
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 1575
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 147 [0], given: 2

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 07:40
B.

The risks result in increased rates, which hurt everyone. This counters the argument that people should be allowed to take risks if those risks dont hurt others.
VP
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 1443
Schools: Chicago Booth '11
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 12

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 08:03
I like B as well.

E is wrong because the conclusion is based on harming other people. E doesn't harm other people, E agrees with the conclusion that people are at their own risk so if they dont wear seatbelts and they will deserve to be hurt.
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Posts: 57
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 10:33
prasannar wrote:
14. Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat. out of scope, we're looking for something that harms other ppl as a result of the risk
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the
increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.this looks good because the risk is "harming" vis a vis higher rates, we'll keep
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.Same as A, obvious wrong answer
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate
of fatalities in states that do have such laws.No good b/c it's giving you stats but is it saying it's harming others? No.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are
passengers who do wear seat belts. No good because this talks about harming the ppl not wearing the seat belts not "others".

Answer B. Based on ..."Opponents... argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks."
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2007
Posts: 213
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 11:49
I like B as well.
Director
Joined: 02 Jan 2008
Posts: 597
Location: Detroit, MI
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Mar 2008, 18:49
Clear B here. It is the only choice that effects others, besides the person who does not wear the seatbelt.
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2008
Posts: 315
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 137 [0], given: 1

Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Mar 2008, 01:19
Clearly B.

It is the only choice that affects others since "Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts"

It weakens the argument which states that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks
Re: OG-10th: CR 14th Question   [#permalink] 11 Mar 2008, 01:19
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 2 26 Oct 2010, 00:16
11 Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 14 01 Oct 2009, 00:19
3 Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 6 11 May 2009, 23:00
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 2 24 Jul 2008, 09:00
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 11 14 Jul 2008, 17:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by