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

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 06:53

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

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 242
Followers: 1

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

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 12:04
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 716
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 13:42
A for me.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: London
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 16:21
It's a tough one.

I go with D.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 256
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 16:25
i think D..

(A) strengthens the argument if anything...
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 198
Location: California
Followers: 2

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

Re: CR - Speed Limits [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 16:29
rdg wrote:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument’s reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.


My answer: D (looks best)

A: Some motorist may not follow limits but are these a significant number?
B: Not related
C: This may actualy help the argument
E: There may be a 'significant' risk of collision in other conditions also
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1024
Followers: 19

Kudos [?]: 118 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
 [#permalink] New post 02 Mar 2007, 16:31
I was actually debating between B and D, but I think D is correct beacause it doesn't go beyond the scope of the argument.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 242
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 03 Mar 2007, 17:49
OA is (D) but I do not understand what is the difference between (D) and (E)? Because both statements are concerned about one of the issues, either spewing exhaust or risk of colliding?
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 299
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2007, 07:27
This question seems flawed to me.

D and E seem most logical. Both refer to the original argument. That speed has no relationship to accidents, and that time is the only vairiable in regards to the atmosphere.

D is more precise, but one could probably argue for E.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 165
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 0

Speed [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2007, 08:21
(D)

D and E both seem to be probable answers - however E is ruled out because of the use of "only" ---->
" (E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road."

The argument mentions that vehicles run risk of collisions if the speed limit is reduced - it is possibly one of the reasons, but not the ONLY reason
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: India
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 1

Re: Speed [#permalink] New post 06 Mar 2007, 19:23
GMAThopeful wrote:
(D)

D and E both seem to be probable answers - however E is ruled out because of the use of "only" ---->
" (E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road."

The argument mentions that vehicles run risk of collisions if the speed limit is reduced - it is possibly one of the reasons, but not the ONLY reason


D over E for the exact same reason.
E presents a very strong argument by using only.
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

Re: Speed   [#permalink] 06 Mar 2007, 19:23
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the vaivish1723 2 30 Jun 2009, 21:06
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the bigtreezl 15 21 Oct 2008, 10:37
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the IrinaOK 4 17 Oct 2007, 17:17
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the rahulraao 5 14 Nov 2005, 04:37
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the crazyfin 3 28 Sep 2005, 00:56
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.