|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 47
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 1
|
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and [#permalink]
 12 May 2009, 00:00
Question Stats:
50% (02:48) correct
50% (00:05) wrong based on 2 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 others 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 dealths of people not wearing seat belts
(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear belts during takeoffs and landings.
(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in state that do not have mandatory seat-belt 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 pasengers who do not wear seat belts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1842
Location: New York
Followers: 20
Kudos [?]:
291
[1] , given: 5
|
Re: CR: wear seat belt [#permalink]
12 May 2009, 00:33
1
This post received
KUDOS
vnbui 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 others 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 dealths of people not wearing seat belts
(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear belts during takeoffs and landings.
(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in state that do not have mandatory seat-belt 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 pasengers who do not wear seat belts A --> Not weakening C --> Out of scope. D -->even rate of fatalities more in state<no seat belt law> .. it is not mentioned that.. not wearing seat belt harming other people who wear the seat belts. Not weakening the conclusion E --> i belive you type "not" accidentally. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are pasengers who do wear seat beltsOne way this is supporting the arugment/conclusion drawn. B --> Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or dealths of people not wearing seat belts here it is clear the all automobile drivers need to pay more price. Risk is Hurting financially to others (people who wearing seat belts). Weaken the conclusion. This is the correct answer.
_________________
Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2008
Posts: 47
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: wear seat belt [#permalink]
12 May 2009, 00:58
thanks x2suresh for detail explanation
at first, i chose E, now i realize how it support the argument
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 842
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: wear seat belt [#permalink]
12 May 2009, 17:47
B looks like the best answer here, but finance seemed a bit out of scope, but then again "harm" wasnt defined
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2009
Posts: 195
Schools: Stanford, Harvard, Berkeley, INSEAD
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
18
[1] , given: 1
|
Re: CR: wear seat belt [#permalink]
14 May 2009, 23:54
1
This post received
KUDOS
Argument is X:(Not wearing Seatbelts doesn't hurt others) ==> Y:(Don't have to wear them). Classic Cause & Effect. Show that X isn't true, show that something else causes Y, show that Y isn't true, show that Y causes X, show that something elses causes X, and so forth... In this case the answer is a clear B as it gets rid of X, that not wearing seatbelts actually DOES hurt others (financially). Final Answer, B.
_________________
Hades
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Aug 2008
Posts: 165
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 8
|
Re: CR: wear seat belt [#permalink]
29 Oct 2009, 02:20
Agree with B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Affiliations: Project Management Professional (PMP)
Joined: 30 Jun 2011
Posts: 215
Location: New Delhi, India
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
9
[1] , given: 12
|
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and [#permalink]
14 Jun 2012, 21:15
1
This post received
KUDOS
vnbui 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 others 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 dealths of people not wearing seat belts
(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear belts during takeoffs and landings.
(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in state that do not have mandatory seat-belt 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 pasengers who do not wear seat belts The principle that people are entitled to risk injury provided they do not thereby harm others fails to justify the individual’s right to decide not to wear seat belts if it can be shown, as B shows, that that decision does harm others. Therefore, B is the best answer. A suggests that the law may be irrelevant in some cases, but it does not address the issue of the law’s legitimacy. C cites a requirement analogous to the one at issue, but its existence alone does not bear on the legitimacy of the one at issue. The argument implicitly concedes that individuals take risks by not wearing seat belts; therefore, D and E, which simply confirm this concession, do not weaken the conclusion.
_________________
Best
Vaibhav
If you found my contribution helpful, please click the +1 Kudos button on the left, Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and
[#permalink]
14 Jun 2012, 21:15
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
