Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to

The answer should be B.
Since this is the only option which says that because of the non-helmet wearing class, the helmet wearing class is affected as they have to pay higher premium.

Pl can someone explain why D cannot be correct ans. D indicates that rate of fatalities are higher in state where people are not mandated to wear seta belts. Does it not mean such fatalities involve others hence harm others. With this answer, of course, there is an underlying assumption that people of the state where law is not mandated, really do not wear the seat belts. This assumption maybe wrong and people may wear seat belts even w/out mandate, but such inference is too long drawn, isn't it?

Comments welcome.

D - higher rate could be because of higher traffic or not good road conditions --- and also there is no guarantee that the accidents are caused by drivers without seat belts.

B - makes a points that because of non-seat belt guys insurance rates go up and therby they are causing harm to others and weakens the conclusion.

B

B shows that because of some people not wearing seat belts all automobile owners insurance will go up......which means financially harm others.

I went with (E) because statistics show that greater number of passengers who do not wear seat-belts are injured. So safety is a concern.
(B), however, talks about financial loss. Since OA is (B), financial loss perhaps is a greater concern than safety compromise.

I do understand that option B is correct. However, what is the problem with option A?
Conclusion is its each person's decision..
Option A implies that new car has seatbelts that automatically faster. What's the issue - is it "new cars"

Experts,
Please reply.

- Nikhil

At first I was going with C
Coming back to the question.

Key highlight: free society people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks.

So the opponents are assuming there is no harm (of any kind) to others.

And we need to weaken it, So we need to find something that will harm others.

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat. It does not talk about how it can harm others. Also it specifies front seat and the argument mentions passengers in the car.

(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.
If I have to pay more because other people are causing more accidents since they are not wearing seat belts is definitely a harm. So looks good.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings. I still don't believe I was picking this one

(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. That is great statistically and in a way it supports the fact we should put on seat belts. But it does nor harm the conclusion that others are being harmed in such an act.

(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. Okay. Now we are just talking about what happens in an accident.

Although i marked choice D as the answer when i saw the question first time, but i think the confusion is b/w B,D and E and i would like to help anyone struggling with these choices

(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.
Here keyword is all, because of people who do not wear seat belts , the insurance rates are going up for all.

(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.
Here it is talking about rate. Rate depends on the number of people on which calculation is made. We donot have information absolute numbers from this

(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.
It is only talking about the patients who donot wear seatbelts and not how it harm other people
Clearly answer is b­

Opponents: I don’t want to be told to wear a seatbelt. I should be able to take that risk as long as I don't harm other people.
Conclusion: Up to individuals to choose whether to wear a seatbelt.


What would weaken the conclusion? We need to show that not wearing a seatbelt actually causes harm to others.

A) irrelevant
B) Possible. Rates going up for everyone is a form of “harm” based on the actions of others.
C) irrelevant
D) The rate of fatalities may be higher, but maybe it’s always the people without the seatbelt who are dying. In this case, there is no additional ‘harm’ to others
E) This is expected, but does not say anything about the harm to others.

Best answer seems to be B.

GMATNinja or any experts,

I am unable to connect the options to argument.Can someone explain each option through POE ?

I read all posts above but didn't find satisfactory answers.

Hi

Let us try to analyze the stimulus.

Conclusion: It should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Premises on which the conclusion is based (why): In a free society people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks.

Since we are asked to weaken the conclusion, we need to look for an answer option that presents a scenario wherein other people are harmed as a result of some people not wearing the seat belt while driving/riding passenger, because this is the exception presented in the stimulus for when individual freedoms may be restrained. Let us look at each answer option for this message:

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat. Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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. Correct. This presents a scenario where everyone is worse off - even those wearing seat belt are adversely affected by those who don't. In other words, others are harmed.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings. Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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. Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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. Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

A typical example of - focus on what the argument is discussing and keep other aspects aside, though they may be critical to a wholesome discussion. A CR argument discusses just one aspect and that is what you need to focus on.

In a free society, people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks.
Conclusion: So it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

This should be correct as long as person A not wearing a seat belt does not harm person B.
It could harm person A and that is what the argument is saying - people have the right to take risks.
But it should not harm anyone else - as long as it doesn't harm others

What weakens the conclusion?

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

Irrelevant what happens today. The argument is saying what should happen.

(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 rates for all are higher. A not wearing seat belt increases insurance rate of B too. This harms B.
So conclusion is weakened. Not wearing seat belts harms others and hence people should wear seat belts.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.

Irrelevant

(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.

People not wearing seat belts are harming themselves. The argument says that is acceptable.

(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.

Again, people not wearing seat belts themselves are injured. The argument says that is acceptable.

Answer (B)­

Experts please explain why A is not right ? Presenting my understanding:

Premise - People (opposing the law) argue that they have right to take risk if they don't harm others
Conclusion - Based on premise, they conclude that it's should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt

Goal - To weaken the conclusion which means that person cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat belt.

How to weaken the conclusion:
1. Any option which suggests that the person is not deciding about seat belt.
2. One person's decision harming others.


Someone who sits in the front seat is forced to wear seat belt. Here person cannot decide on his own.

Thanks in advance!

The argument against mandatory seat belt laws is based on the premise that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others. Therefore, to weaken this argument, we need to show that not wearing a seat belt can harm others or that the individual's decision not to wear a seat belt can harm others.

Option B provides a reason to believe that not wearing a seat belt can harm others. If automobile insurance rates are higher for all automobile owners because of the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts, then it is clear that not wearing a seat belt can harm others. This undermines the argument that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt, as that decision could have consequences for others.

Option A is irrelevant, as it does not address the issue of whether not wearing a seat belt can harm others.

Option C is also irrelevant, as it only compares a different mode of transportation and does not address the argument against mandatory seat belt laws.

Option D provides evidence that mandatory seat belt laws are effective in reducing automobile fatalities, but it does not directly address the argument that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others.

Option E provides evidence that wearing a seat belt can reduce the number of injuries sustained in automobile accidents, but it also does not directly address the argument that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others.

Therefore, the answer is (B).

A) Irrelevant
B) Say in locality A, People who wear a seat belt have to pay a high amount for insurance premium because the risk of getting into an accident is greater than other localities in which all people wear a belt. Here The rate is spiked by drivers who do not wear a belt, making insurance expensive for all parties. This is an economic harm projected by non seat belt wearers on others.
C) Airplanes =out of scope
D) a) what if this is referring to the drivers alone and not others. OR the region in which fatalities are high is because in that region people drive more. Then the seat belt is not even a factor.

E) Limited to drivers = does not weaken