|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 842
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]
 21 Oct 2008, 11:37
Question Stats:
100% (01:36) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
21 Oct 2008, 11:58
bigtreezl 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. I was between D & E for a more than a minute. I ended up choosing E because D goes a bit too far in saying primarily and spewing exhaust is equated to total emissions of an automobile trip. Both of them are very attractive. I felt D is the trap. What is the OA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1411
Followers: 6
Kudos [?]:
73
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
21 Oct 2008, 22:42
bigtreezl 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. Between D and E,initially felt D is good !!but if we give a closer look!! we get that in D they are saying total emissions determined by total time !!in argument we are not bothered about amount od emissioins ! it just says when the autobiles spend more time on road they emit gases !! E i felt bad since the use of ONLY :but when D loses ,E is fine !! IMO E
_________________
cheers
Its Now Or Never
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 84
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 01:00
E
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1050
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
214
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 02:05
bigtreezl 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. I picked D initially  but after reading the explanations of Priya and icandy I believe E is right. I fell in the clever trap 
_________________
"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg
Check out my GMAT blog - GMAT Tips and Strategies
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 85
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 4
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 02:12
My ans is E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1593
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
131
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 02:28
Initially, I picked E, but I will go with D for the reason that E mentions "significant risk" and stimulus does not say that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 309
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 08:34
i will go for D
E exaggerates the stimulus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 160
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
17
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 08:47
I too feel E is more appropriate. Whats the QA ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 08:50
Hmm We have quite a division here
(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.
I colored the problematic parts and ruled out D based on the extraneous information it brings in.
Stimulus says 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
I believe we can safely say that if drivers spend more time on road then they have risk of collision. Cars by themselves dont spend time on the road.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 842
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 09:58
OA is D
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 10:13
bigtreezl wrote: OA is D Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 842
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 10:21
icandy wrote: bigtreezl wrote: OA is D Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E. This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 10:29
bigtreezl wrote: icandy wrote: bigtreezl wrote: OA is D Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E. This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation. Wow! If LSAT says so, I don't have any more Q's. other than Just sucking it up
|
|
|
|
|
|
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 1003
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
40
[0], given: 5
|
Re: CR: Speed Limits [#permalink]
22 Oct 2008, 14:06
hahaha  Here's a partial explanation: 11-t42786bigtreezl wrote: icandy wrote: bigtreezl wrote: OA is D This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation. Wow! If LSAT says so, I don't have any more Q's. other than Just sucking it up |
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 43
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 36
|
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 23:18
I selected E, but find D to be a better Option. I think explanation given in the other discussion regarding the wrong use of 'only' in E option makes it a wrong answer choice.
_________________
If you think you are lost, you are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the
[#permalink]
15 Aug 2012, 23:18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
