NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 15:52 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 15:52
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
avatar
gjg
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Mar 2012
Posts: 7
Own Kudos [?]: 123 [19]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   17 Jul 2012, 15:55
3
Kudos
16
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

61% (02:27) correct 39% (02:35) wrong based on 851 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?
1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.
2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.
4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
B
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
tuanquang269
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Status:Flying over the cloud!
Posts: 380
Own Kudos [?]: 1547 [7]
Given Kudos: 44
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
Schools: Booth PT '18 Foster '18 Goizueta '18 Ross '18 Kellogg '18 Kenan-Flagler '18 Tuck '18
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Abortion [#permalink] New post   17 Jul 2012, 23:55
7
Kudos
gjg wrote:
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?
1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.
2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.
4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.


This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.
And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).
There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFIC
We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:
(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion
(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument.
(C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.
(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption
(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.
General Discussion
User avatar
B
thevenus
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Status:Final Countdown
Posts: 320
Own Kudos [?]: 1305 [0]
Given Kudos: 76
Location: United States (NY)
GPA: 3.82
WE:Account Management (Retail Banking)
Send PM
Re: Abortion [#permalink] New post   18 Jul 2012, 00:11
tuanquang269 wrote:
gjg wrote:
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?
1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.
2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.
4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.


This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.
And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).
There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFIC
We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:
(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion
(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument.
(C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.
(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption
(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.


Please teach us how negation works in general, you made this difficult question answer in a very technical way to make us comprehend :)
User avatar
B
donkadsw
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Sep 2011
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 43 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Location: Singapore
Concentration: Finance, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V40
GPA: 3.44
WE:Information Technology (Investment Banking)
Send PM
Re: Abortion [#permalink] New post   18 Jul 2012, 00:26
Hi Tuanquang269,

How have you figured that the conclusion of the argument is 'We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality'?

From OA, your conclusion is obviously correct. But on first reading, i thought the below was the conclusion:

The abortion opponents' arguments based on sanctity of life are weak (conclusion) because we are always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality (premise)

tuanquang269 wrote:
gjg wrote:
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counterexamples to the principle of sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Which of the following assumptions are made in the above argument?
1) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection.
2) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
3) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.
4) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
5) Government may have no authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals.


This is quite tough question with the diffusing meaning and hardness to understand thoroughly the argument. First, we should evaluate this argument into small pieces.

The foundation of opposing abortion is the sanctity of human life. However, this foundation is weak.
And it is not necessary to invoke the read herring that many abortion opponents would allow that the human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good (as the fighting of war).
There are counterexample to the principle of the sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. That is THE EXAMPLE OF LEGISLATION ON THE TRAFFIC
We have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality => Conclusion here.

Using the negate technique with the 5 choices, we got:
(A) A human fetus SHOULD be considered a “life” for purposes of government protection. => Clearly not attack the conclusion
(B) An appropriate societal decision is NOT made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. => What happen? The conclusion "willing to trade off the quantity of human life for quality" is collapsed. So, this is the correct assumption of the argument.
(C) The abortion question just DOES NOT make explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view. => whether or not the abortion question just DOES or DOES NOT make explicit has remain hidden from view DID not affect the conclusion of the argument in the bad way.
(D) The protection of human life IS a justifiable goal of society. => Go in the same way as the conclusion => this choice cannot be the assumption
(E)) Government may HAVE authority to act on behalf of families but legitimately protect the interests of individuals. => FAMILIES is out of scope here. So, this choice does not affect to the conclusion anyway.
avatar
badribaba1984
Intern
Intern
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 82 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   29 Jul 2012, 09:59
I choose option B . However the reason was that i did not find anyother suitable option . But when we see B , it looks more like the re iteration of the conclusion.
User avatar
sidhu09
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 91
Own Kudos [?]: 159 [1]
Given Kudos: 22
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   31 Jul 2012, 05:14
1
Kudos
People who oppose abortion base their argument on the sanctity of human life. But the same people does allow human sacrifice in the war which they think is for the greater good of humanity in general.
Example has been provided: Number of traffic fatalities can be reduced if a federal legislation is mandated to limit the speed to 25mph nationwide.
We are willing to let go quantity of human life for quality.

This overlap occurs because there has to be a balance between what human think implicitly and explicitly. Its the same balance that deals with quantity and quality of life. Hence B is the answer.
User avatar
S
Marcab
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Status:Retaking after 7 years
Posts: 864
Own Kudos [?]: 4468 [0]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States (NY)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Simon '15 (M$)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.75
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   21 Aug 2012, 12:18
I really don't understand how come you guys are saying that answer is B.
As per the conclusion," we have always been willing to trade off QUANTITY of human life for quality".
B says..........in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
D says.....the protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society. Has protection of human life been the justifiable goal of society, then in such a case we won't have always been willing to trade of quantity of human life for quality.
With that, I suppose the answer has to be D.
Please correct me if I am missing something.
User avatar
ankit0411
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 83
Own Kudos [?]: 416 [0]
Given Kudos: 11
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Anderson '15 Ross '15 Kenan-Flagler '15 Tepper '15
GPA: 3.33
WE:Information Technology (Retail)
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   10 Sep 2012, 23:38
siddharthasingh wrote:
I really don't understand how come you guys are saying that answer is B.
As per the conclusion," we have always been willing to trade off QUANTITY of human life for quality".
B says..........in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
D says.....the protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society. Has protection of human life been the justifiable goal of society, then in such a case we won't have always been willing to trade of quantity of human life for quality.
With that, I suppose the answer has to be D.
Please correct me if I am missing something.


I think your going a way bit off here.

We actually want to have a balance ; but option D just states that protection of life is not a justifiable goal . how does it even relate to the conclusion or even when you negate, it does not attack the conclusion .

It's a mere conclusion drawn and not any unstated premise from which we can draw a conclusion.
User avatar
B
highdiving
Manager
Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2012
Posts: 120
Own Kudos [?]: 26 [0]
Given Kudos: 85
Location: Italy
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 560 Q36 V34
GPA: 3.1
WE:Sales (Transportation)
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   30 Jan 2013, 04:39
The author is pro-abortion, so it makes sense to him/her to sacrifice a life in order to obtain a better life quality for the parents, for example.

And he/she says we have been doing this for years, by not lowering speed limits. Since we traded some road fatalities with the speed, it makes sense to keep trading some lives for some benefits.

Option B states exactly this.
User avatar
vivmechster
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2013
Posts: 47
Own Kudos [?]: 75 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   18 Dec 2013, 21:42
OMG! What a question, It took 3.04 minute to find the right answer choice.

Conclusion: Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Narrowed down to A, B
Negated A
So, B
User avatar
mba1382
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 138
Own Kudos [?]: 1188 [1]
Given Kudos: 172
GPA: 3.46
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   18 Dec 2013, 22:09
1
Bookmarks
Really good question. Got me thinking but finally got it right aft 2:32 s :-(

Here was my approach:

Conclusion: Implicitly, we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Pre-thinking: From the premises and esp conclusion, we get to know that the assumption should not be too specific to any of the premises but has to be somewhat braod covering the argument. Also from the premises and conclusion, we come to know that the argument is mainly talking about the quantity(abortions, no. of traffic fatalities,war) and quality (sanctity of life that are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents; federal legislation mandating a nationwide 25-mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads). Moreover, the focus of the conclusion is about quantity and quality of human life.

By POE, we see that options A,C & E are too specific and do not make sense looking at the conclusion. Finally on negating D & E as below:

D. The protection of human life is a justifiable goal of society --> Doesn't affect the conclusion at all.
B. An appropriate societal decision is not made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life. ---> If this is true then the conclusion will fall part. In the sense there will be trade off in terms of quantity and quality of human life, affecting arguments concerning war , traffic fatalities and abortion opponents and sanctity of human life.

What's the source?
User avatar
schazamhuzzah
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Nov 2014
Status:I am ready!
Posts: 35
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 362
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V35
Send PM
Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   07 Jun 2015, 13:17
Great question..was stuck between B and C ..finally picked B
User avatar
VerbalBot
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17213
Own Kudos [?]: 848 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink] New post   18 Dec 2022, 00:27
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of [#permalink]
18 Dec 2022, 00:27
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6920 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions