|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1384
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 10
|
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and [#permalink]
 14 Jul 2008, 18:49
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
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
persons 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 thefront seat.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C not weaken the conclusion?
(In case you want to know the other choices ,below is the list of answer choices.
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in thefront seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need topay 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 isgreater 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 areinjured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
)
Last edited by goalsnr on 15 Jul 2008, 07:27, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 276
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
goalsnr wrote: 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
persons 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 thefront seat.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C weaken the conclusion?
(In case you want to know the other choices ,below is the list of answer choices.
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in thefront seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need topay 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 isgreater 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 areinjured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
) Not too sure about A, but my money is on C Reason :Consider this exampler X and Y travel together in a car, X does not wear a seat belt but is driving the car, Y(per her choice) does not wear the seatbelt as well. The car is involved in an accident due to X's careless driving. The conclusion supports the fact that if X gets hurt, it's his funeral. But if Y gets hurt because of X's action, then we have an issue. Thus the conclusion is weak cause it now inadvertently requires Y to forcefully put on a seat belt(which it tries to argue against , saying that it must be left to people to decide whether they want to wear a seat belt) as Y is at the mercy of X's driving skills. Draw the same analogy to passengers in an aircraft at the mercy of the captain's flying skills. Hence C emerges as a winner here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 806
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
66
[0], given: 0
|
this is B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 27 May 2008
Posts: 554
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
107
[0], given: 0
|
I agree wth B
the aregument is that a person should have the freedom to take risk if he hurt himself only....
B says by doing that, the person is hurting society also as others are paying more as insurance premium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 12 Jul 2008
Posts: 523
Schools: Wharton
Followers: 11
Kudos [?]:
72
[0], given: 0
|
goalsnr wrote: 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
persons 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 thefront seat.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C weaken the conclusion?
(In case you want to know the other choices ,below is the list of answer choices.
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in thefront seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need topay 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 isgreater 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 areinjured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
) I'm not sure I understand your question, because A and C aren't the correct answer. B is correct because if B is true, then not wearing seat belts affects everyone, including those who wear seat belts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 276
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 0
|
zoinnk wrote: goalsnr wrote: 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
persons 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 thefront seat.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C weaken the conclusion?
(In case you want to know the other choices ,below is the list of answer choices.
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in thefront seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need topay 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 isgreater 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 areinjured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
) I'm not sure I understand your question, because A and C aren't the correct answer. B is correct because if B is true, then not wearing seat belts affects everyone, including those who wear seat belts. I thought we had to pick between A and C???
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 229
Location: Pune
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 3
|
Answer is B is as it is affecting insurance companies besides the people
_________________
Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working
AB
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1384
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 10
|
Sorry I made a typo in question. I have corrected my question.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C not weaken the conclusion?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2008
Posts: 229
Location: Pune
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
16
[0], given: 3
|
The point is conclusion is only going to be weakend if because of the accidents some other person is affected so in point A and C no where talk about the hindrance to the other people goalsnr wrote: Sorry I made a typo in question. I have corrected my question.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C not weaken the conclusion?
_________________
Every Problem Has a Sloution So keep working
AB
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 03 Apr 2007
Posts: 1384
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
90
[0], given: 10
|
apurva1985 wrote: The point is conclusion is only going to be weakend if because of the accidents some other person is affected so in point A and C no where talk about the hindrance to the other people goalsnr wrote: Sorry I made a typo in question. I have corrected my question.
In A and C , the passenger is denied the right to make a choice. So how come choices A and C not weaken the conclusion? Ok I get it. Sometimes I hust skip words while reading.  The argument means people have the right to take risks as long as no other person is hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
