Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 19 Apr 2014, 22:24

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.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Aug 2011
Posts: 16
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 16

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 16 Jul 2012, 08:43
raingary wrote:
The answer is B.

The conclusion of the argument is that people would be deterred from using their car phones if it becomes illegal by law.

B provides the link between the conclusion and the argument , explaining that it is only through legislation that people would be deterred.
D provides a general statement that any law that would reduce threat to public safety should be adopted.It does not mention any point
why law for car phones need to be implemented.


This is also other way of looking on question. Seems convincing also.

The conclusion which we both have chosen are different.
Director
Director
User avatar
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 565
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 110 [0], given: 75

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 16 Jul 2012, 08:56
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.

negation: if there is no legislation then,threat to safe driving will never go.

(B) wins.

why not (D) ? Because...

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted."

Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.

A bill is a proposed law,

so, (D) is just the rephrasing of the premise. { The same reason why we eliminated (A) because of rephrasing }
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Feb 2011
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 4

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 23 Jul 2012, 02:35
I chose (E). Here is my line of reasoning:

(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
=> irrelevant. We are talking about legislation here.

(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
=> there could be other ways to reduce threat to public safety posed by car phones.

(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
=> what are they referring to by "some"?

(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
=> any? are you sure you want to adopt any law? The kind of law we need is one related to driving.

(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.
=> by negating (E) will lead to : Car phone use by passengers distracts the driver of the car." This would make the legislation ineffective and therefore I pick (E) as my answer.


Suggestions anyone?
Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Posts: 39
GMAT Date: 09-17-2012
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 26

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 25 Jul 2012, 03:45
az780 wrote:
Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
The argument’s main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.


The conclusion of this argument is the bill should be adopted. The politician is concerned about the bill. Next he states the reasons why the bill should be adopted cause its related to public safety and blah blah....

So the main evidence of stimulus is that "the bill is about public safety."
People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so ----> intermediate conclusion
The main conclusion of argument is that the "bill should be adopted."
Thus the politician assumes that any bill on public safety will be adopted.

ans D

TIPS to find the evidence and conclusion of an argument:-
- Ask the question what the author asserts in the argument.
-Ask the question why does the author arrive at this conclusion..to find the evidence..
Manager
Manager
Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 69
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 3

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 28 Jul 2012, 12:52
Wow .. This is one of those questions where i see a lot of split between B and D . With No clear logic for choosing one over the other. Would GMAC setup such controversial questions ??
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Preparing for the another shot...!
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 1427
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GPA: 3.75
Followers: 108

Kudos [?]: 491 [0], given: 62

GMAT ToolKit User GMAT Tests User Premium Member
Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 18 Aug 2012, 07:40
Expert's post
Conclusion: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adapted.
The key words in the conclusion are " the bill that makes using car phones while driving..."
The reason B is the answer is that on negation we get: The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is not through legislation.
This concludes that there are several other ways that can be used to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones.
Whereas, d states that ANY PROPOSED LAW THAT WOULD REDUCE A THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY SHOULD BE ADAPTED. Note that the issue raised in this option is just the public safety; nowhere there has been usage of car phones, safety..etc. This leads us to think that if there are several other laws as well, then its not necessary to adapt this bill only.
E is nowhere near of being a conclusion because on negating, we get: car phone use by passengers distracts the driver of the car,( this stengthens the main conclusion, when it shouldn't have to).
Hence clearly the answer is B.
_________________

Prepositional Phrases Clarified|Elimination of BEING| Absolute Phrases Clarified
Rules For Posting
www.Univ-Scholarships.com

Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2012
Posts: 50
Schools: LBS '14
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 55

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 30 Jan 2013, 06:45
B.

Only through legislation public can be deterred --> this bill deters unsafe driving which is bad for road safety (ex.s given)
---> this bill should be passed (conclusion)
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Feb 2013
Posts: 16
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 18

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 20 Jun 2013, 09:41
what is the OA?

I am confused regarding the conclusion

My answer is B
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 983
Location: United States
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 935 [0], given: 116

Premium Member
Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 20 Jun 2013, 14:30
ruchikaarya41 wrote:
what is the OA?

I am confused regarding the conclusion

My answer is B


Hi ruchikaarya

OA is B. Please refer to this link below:

car-and-mobile-do-u-favor-17940.html

The most difficult thing of assumption questions is how to determine the conclusion correctly. For this question, you can see the argument structure of the politician: "I think X ...... My support for that is Y......." ==> X should be the main point.

==> The conclusion should be "The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted"

Assumption is: There is no way other than legislation could reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones.

* This question uses defender assumption. You can refer to Power Score CR - Bible, chapter assumption question.

If you negate this assumption: There is other way that could reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones ==> Why the bill should be adopted? We don't need the bill approved anymore. Clearly, the conclusion fails.

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Nov 2011
Posts: 136
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Entrepreneurship
Schools: Stanford '15
GPA: 3.61
WE: Consulting (Manufacturing)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 87

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 22 Jun 2013, 00:08
pqhai wrote:
ruchikaarya41 wrote:
what is the OA?

I am confused regarding the conclusion

My answer is B


Hi ruchikaarya

OA is B. Please refer to this link below:

car-and-mobile-do-u-favor-17940.html

The most difficult thing of assumption questions is how to determine the conclusion correctly. For this question, you can see the argument structure of the politician: "I think X ...... My support for that is Y......." ==> X should be the main point.

==> The conclusion should be "The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted"

Assumption is: There is no way other than legislation could reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones.

* This question uses defender assumption. You can refer to Power Score CR - Bible, chapter assumption question.

If you negate this assumption: There is other way that could reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones ==> Why the bill should be adopted? We don't need the bill approved anymore. Clearly, the conclusion fails.

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.


But OA is D

http://acmepvtlimited.tripod.com/education53.htm

Also can you explain C -
If C is negated - i.e. distraction while driving does not hamper one's ability to drive safely - the whole point of introducing a legislation is taken away.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2011
Posts: 185
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 103

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 03 Jul 2013, 03:16
Frankly speaking the main reasoning lies in recognizing the conclusion.

Premise is : People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
Conclusion : The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted.


Now Let's consider option B and D

B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. -->
Wrong: This is a extreme ans ..we can't assume if this is the ONLY way, there can be n no. of ways
D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
Correct-
Negating it : It is not the case that any proposed that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted
- Definitely it hurts

So i feel D is correct.. .
_________________

If u can't jump the 700 wall , drill a big hole and cross it .. I can and I WILL DO IT ...need some encouragement and inspirations from U ALL

Manager
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 150
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 27 [0], given: 41

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 03 Jul 2013, 22:18
BukrsGmat wrote:
Frankly speaking the main reasoning lies in recognizing the conclusion.

Premise is : People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
Conclusion : The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted.


Now Let's consider option B and D

B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. -->
Wrong: This is a extreme ans ..we can't assume if this is the ONLY way, there can be n no. of ways
D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
Correct-
Negating it : It is not the case that any proposed that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted
- Definitely it hurts

So i feel D is correct.. .


B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
If only legislation can help reduce the threat to public safety, then the bill which we are referring can only reduce the threat..
THe conclusion is "The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted."

Why it should be adopted as only the the legislations can help bring the change.

D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
If any proposed law can reduce the threat, then why only this particular bill.. maybe some other bill/law can help reduce the threat...
It may be a food security bill/law or an anti-corruption bill... D is not an assumption...

Answer should be B...
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Manager
Manager
Status: Applying to Ph D programs
Affiliations: IIMB, advantages.us
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 36

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink] New post 05 Jul 2013, 23:17
GMATBLACKBELT wrote:
az780 wrote:
Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
The argument’s main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.


This is a tough assumption and I was torn btwn A and D.

heres why I chose D "The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety." This is the main conclusion. The plan should be adopted. The support is motived by public safety. The argument assumes that a law should be adopted if it can reduce a threat to public safety.


I'd say the choice of D would put me in the list of those who should watch evaluating answers in the order of reading them also causated reading choice (A) again, but nothing in assumption questions belongs to explicit wording either and thus it should be A as the word safety has not really been explained and confused with attention presumably. You are free to let me know ..
Manager
Manager
Status: Applying to Ph D programs
Affiliations: IIMB, advantages.us
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 36

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 08 Jul 2013, 23:29
az780 wrote:
Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.
The argument’s main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is.
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation.
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.


Ain't i getting this all things too equal once too often in the new GMAT. If it is not the jump required to make the conclusion/inference it is the equal imlicit inaneness to allow the author of the argument ( in all the five choices)

A. you aren't paying attention to driving due to phones, does paying attention make it as perfect a world as possible?
B. Is true that but is it an assumption to be made to push the regulation as it 'should be adopted'
C. Actually that has not been said here already. no, it has been restated from the premise
D. seems valid for the should be used
E irrelevant

I would go with D as it links first and second statements (though they are the same premise)
Manager
Manager
Status: Applying to Ph D programs
Affiliations: IIMB, advantages.us
Joined: 03 Jul 2013
Posts: 97
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: iim-bangalore - Class of 1994
GMAT 1: 750 Q59 V43
GPA: 3.12
WE: Research (Investment Banking)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 36

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink] New post 08 Jul 2013, 23:33
chica wrote:
walker wrote:
B

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety. Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving. People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so.

The argument’s main conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is. - is paraphrasing of "... distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving."
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. - the best. By deny: If Politician had a better way, Politician would not support this bill.
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile.- is paraphrasing of "... distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving."
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted. - is paraphrasing of "The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted. My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety."
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car. - weaken the argument

I disagree that OA is D and found this one: http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/11-t17940


Hi. walker,
would you, please, explain your reasoning here, particularly why you consider E "weakening" ? Thanks much

P.S. Disagree that D is correct answer as well. It merely cant be so..


walker, I'd say the problem with B is that fact is not targeted at the conclusion . i.e. people would be deterred from using phones. as you said it just goes to politician would have said something else...
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 368
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 291

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink] New post 16 Oct 2013, 06:23
Guys the OA is D. It is pointless fixating on different answers. http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/the ... 22328.html

Besides GMAT doesn't like using extreme words. Hence B is out.
Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while   [#permalink] 16 Oct 2013, 06:23
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
New posts Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying chunjuwu 5 26 Mar 2005, 03:39
New posts B-School Making Us All Politicians johnnyx9 9 29 Mar 2007, 20:02
New posts when while is advised to use delta09 5 16 Dec 2009, 20:12
New posts 6 Use of while maybeam 3 21 Jul 2012, 00:50
New posts 2 Experts publish their posts in the topic While personal cell phones have facilitated GMATPill 1 14 Sep 2013, 17:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 36 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.