Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 20 Jan 2017, 23:33

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

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 10:37
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

67% (01:36) correct 33% (00:00) wrong based on 10 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.
If you have any questions
New!
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 360 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 10:58
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: 1397
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 290 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 21:42
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: 82
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 00:00
E
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1043
Followers: 14

Kudos [?]: 567 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 01:05
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

Manager
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 85
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 01:12
My ans is E.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1569
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 250 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 01:28
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: 306
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:34
i will go for D

E exaggerates the stimulus
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 160
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:47
I too feel E is more appropriate. Whats the QA ?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 360 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:50
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: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 08:58
OA is D
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 360 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:13
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: 838
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:21
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: 1430
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 360 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:29
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: 994
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 196 [0], given: 5

Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 13:06
hahaha

Here's a partial explanation:
11-t42786

bigtreezl 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 [?]: 15 [0], given: 36

Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 22:18
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, 22:18
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 18 16 Feb 2010, 07:31
1 Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 2 30 Jun 2009, 21:06
Neither a rising standard of living nor balanced trade, by 10 11 Jun 2008, 20:23
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 4 17 Oct 2007, 17:17
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 9 02 Mar 2007, 12:04
Display posts from previous: Sort by