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

 It is currently 07 Mar 2014, 06:31

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while

Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2007
Posts: 101
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 12 [1] , given: 0

Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  30 Jan 2008, 00:45
1
KUDOS
00:00

Difficulty:

5% (low)

Question Stats:

54% (02:16) correct 45% (01:39) wrong based on 149 sessions
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.
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  30 Jan 2008, 01:35
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. -- irrelevant to the conclusion
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. - leave it for now
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile. -- we are talking about the specific distractions. This could be a good answer for interference questions, but not for assumption in this case
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted. - Eliminate this one for its extreme wording. We can't assume about any proposed law
(E)Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car. - leave it for now

Between B and E..
The conclusion - the bill will help to secure driving..
E: Car phone use by passengers does distract the driver of the car -- then the conclusion does not make sense. The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal will not help to secure driving. I will pick E

B: There are several ways to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones besides through legislation. - Great. The conclusion is still here.
CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2597
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 0

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  02 Feb 2008, 19:37
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.
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3600
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 316

Kudos [?]: 1564 [0], given: 354

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  05 Feb 2008, 02:55
Expert's post
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: 11-t17940
_________________

NEW! GMAT ToolKit 2 (iOS) / GMAT ToolKit (Android) - The must have GMAT prep app | PrepGame

Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  08 Feb 2008, 02:58
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..
CEO
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 3600
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Other
Schools: Chicago (Booth) - Class of 2011
GMAT 1: 750 Q50 V40
Followers: 316

Kudos [?]: 1564 [0], given: 354

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  08 Feb 2008, 03:27
Expert's post
chica wrote:

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..

I was wrong. "E" contradicts the passage rather than weakens assumption.

E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car.
...Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving....
_________________

NEW! GMAT ToolKit 2 (iOS) / GMAT ToolKit (Android) - The must have GMAT prep app | PrepGame

Director
Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Posts: 541
Schools: Stern, McCombs, Marshall, Wharton
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 89 [0], given: 0

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  08 Feb 2008, 09:29
I think the OA is correct and the answer is D.

The conclusion is that the bill should be adopted. The premises clearly show that the bill will reduce the threat to public safety. But just because the bill reduces the threat doesnt mean it should be adopted. This is the assumption made by the politician.
Manager
Joined: 19 Dec 2007
Posts: 87
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  12 Feb 2008, 03:00
gixxer1000 wrote:
I think the OA is correct and the answer is D.

The conclusion is that the bill should be adopted. The premises clearly show that the bill will reduce the threat to public safety. But just because the bill reduces the threat doesnt mean it should be adopted. This is the assumption made by the politician.

Thanks much

I have revised the argument:
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.

Main conclusion:The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted
Premise 1: My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety
Premise 2: Using a car phone seriously distracts the driver, which in turn poses a threat to safe driving.
Premise 3: People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so

B: The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. Deny: There are other ways to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones rather than through legislation. Ok, legislation is not the only way.. does it mean that we should not adopt the bill just because there are some other ways to help out the situation with safety?? Maybe, it is simply the quickest or cheapest way to educe the threat to public safety posed by car phones..

E: this answer will not impact the conclusion. My answer choice first was based on the other conclusion... I made mistake in drawing the conclusion the first time..

D: still a bit confused here.. If the answer stated every it would be more obvious. It is different negating any law from negating every law:
Not any law... should be adopted --> but some still should be adopted. This will not break the argument.
None of the laws... should be adopted --> this will break the argument.
Any comments on the issue are more than welcome
Current Student
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 571
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 13

Re: CR illegal driving [#permalink]  10 May 2011, 04:16
amit2k9 wrote:
B as supporting the Bill is the main conclusion.

I also choose B , But y is D wrong ?
I think even D does a perfect job. Not sure if its useful to use any source thats not for made for GMAT.
Most of the answers on LSAT have 2 best answers. its anyones guess to take one. ( probability is 50%:) )
Retired Moderator
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1735
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 60

Kudos [?]: 201 [0], given: 109

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  07 May 2012, 05:59
+1 D

The chain of reasoning of the author is the following:

This bill would reduce the described threat ----> this bill should be adopted.

But if we assume that any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety NOT NECESSARILY should be adopted, we couldn´t conclude that this bills should be adopted.
_________________

"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."

My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html

Manager
Status: Bunuel's fan!
Joined: 08 Jul 2011
Posts: 232
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 53

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  18 May 2012, 02:57
I actually picked D because I felt like B similar to the last sentence of the argument: "People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so".
Manager
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 197
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.6
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 33 [1] , given: 7

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  19 May 2012, 02:24
1
KUDOS
Conclusion :
The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted.

Premise :
My support of this bill is motivated by a concern for public safety

Assumption :
If something that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted as law

D does exactly the same.
_________________

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://gmatclub.com/forum/a-guide-to-the-official-guide-13-for-gmat-review-134210.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intern
Joined: 17 Dec 2010
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [1] , given: 7

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  24 May 2012, 06:26
1
KUDOS
we need to know which one is the main conclusion here.

if the main conclusion is ' The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted'...then answer is 'D'

If the main conclusion is 'People would be deterred from using their car phones while driving if it were illegal to do so'..then the answer is 'B'

I will go for B
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2010
Posts: 31
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V36
GPA: 3.59
WE: Accounting (Accounting)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 10

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  28 May 2012, 20:40
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.

I think the answer is D because only this answer choice is relevant to the main conclusion. I understand it is extreme but others do not affect the conclusion. I wonder if this is correct!
Intern
Joined: 07 May 2012
Posts: 9
Followers: 0

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

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  06 Jun 2012, 07:59
i'm kinda straight forward. I look for conclusion and similar wording in choices. To me the word law or legislation popped out of the conclusion. Choices narrowed down to B and D. D says any. Kinda extreme. B says only way which is kinda extreme. So I chose B which kinda agrees with legislator's reasoning of ppl would not use it if it's put into law. D becomes quite irrelevant to me when I think like this. :D I'm not GMAT literate yet so if my thinking is flawed, please don't go off on me. :D
Manager
Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 201
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 22

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  06 Jun 2012, 22:18
(A) The more attention one pays to driving, the safer a driver one is. - Already mentioned in the premise - Incorrect
(B) The only way to reduce the threat to public safety posed by car phones is through legislation. - Legislation is the only way to restrict people from using phone while driving. Otherwise the politician would have not proposed a bill - Correct
(C) Some distractions interfere with one’s ability to safely operate an automobile. - Does not talk about phone usage particularly - Incorrect
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted. - Already mentioned in the first line - Incorrect(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car. - Usage of phone by the driver is being discussed. Hence irrelevant - Incorrect
Intern
Joined: 15 Aug 2010
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  06 Jun 2012, 22:35
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. its not relevant to the topic/or can say out of scope as its a universal statement.
(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. its a general statment that has nothing to do with the argument so Out.
(D) Any proposed law that would reduce a threat to public safety should be adopted.- Not any law .......so out
(E) Car phone use by passengers does not distract the driver of the car. - its not relevant to the topic

what is the OA.......
Intern
Status: Trying to crack GMAT
Joined: 17 May 2012
Posts: 39
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
GMAT Date: 07-11-2012
GPA: 3.82
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [1] , given: 4

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  19 Jun 2012, 21:58
1
KUDOS
I think a lot of discussion here is due to I.Ding what the main conclusion is:

IMO the conclusion is : The bill that makes using car phones while driving illegal should be adopted

So, to make or bread this conclusion we have to fight it out btw B and D.
D seems better because it is the critical link btw bill is adopted<----> people are unsafe.
_________________

“When I was young I observed that nine out of ten things I did were failures, so I did ten times more work.” ~ Bernard Shaw

Kudos me if I helped you in any way.

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]  16 Jul 2012, 08:19
Simple explanation:-

Why legislation is required? ----> as it is matter of public safety...Now think what missing link can fit between these two links?

Option D, because option B is paraphrasing of the fact given in the last sentence of the stimulus....
Intern
Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Posts: 35
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 11 [2] , given: 0

Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while [#permalink]  16 Jul 2012, 08:37
2
KUDOS

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.
Re: Politician: The bill that makes using car phones while   [#permalink] 16 Jul 2012, 08:37
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Politician: Critics of wetlands-protection bill are delaying 5 26 Mar 2005, 03:39
B-School Making Us All Politicians 9 29 Mar 2007, 20:02
when while is advised to use 5 16 Dec 2009, 20:12
6 Use of while 3 21 Jul 2012, 00:50
2 While personal cell phones have facilitated 1 14 Sep 2013, 17:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by