It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 03:45

### 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

# Events & Promotions

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

# A City police department plans to set up a special task

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 413

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Location: Lungi
A City police department plans to set up a special task [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2004, 06:59
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

50% (00:45) correct 50% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

A City police department plans to set up a special task force to
identify and prosecute drunk drivers. A City council member objects,
claiming that the expense of putting together the task force is not
justified because less than one out of ten thousand drivers on the
street on a given night are driving while intoxicated.

Which of the following , if true , most weakens the argument made by
the objecting council member?

a. Similar task forces in other cities have not brought about
increases in convictions for drunken driving.
b. More than half of the auto accidents in the city are caused by
drunken drivers.
c. Most drunken drivers are identified as such only after they have
already caused an accident.
d. Strong penalties for drunken driving are already written into
state laws.
e. Putting together the special task force will require a 10%
increase in the police department's budget.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2004
Posts: 185

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Location: illinois

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2004, 12:53
was debating between B and C.

B says that more than half of the accident are done by drunk drivers.

C says that We know that they are drunk ONLY after they have already caused the accident.

C Sounds better doesn't it??? anybody explain??

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4284

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

01 Apr 2004, 13:18
monarc wrote:
was debating between B and C.

B says that more than half of the accident are done by drunk drivers.

C says that We know that they are drunk ONLY after they have already caused the accident.

C Sounds better doesn't it??? anybody explain??

C is the opposite of what we are looking for and actually strengthen the argument of the objecting council member. If we know only after the accident that drivers are drunk, then what is the use of setting up a task force to identify them (after the accident is perpetrated)?
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

Kudos [?]: 537 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 413

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

Location: Lungi

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2004, 01:06
yes B again.

The correct response is B . The councilman's objection is based on
the fact that very few of the drivers in the city drive while
intoxicated. However, if the majority of the auto accidents inthe
city are caused by drunk drivers, as described in choice B, then the
city's most effective strategy for reducing auto accidents is to
combat drunk driving. Choices A and E would not weaken the council
member's argument. Choice C would be an argument in favor of the task
force, but does not establish, as choice B does, that getting drunk
drivers off the streets would actually produce a measurable benefit.
Choice D is irrelevant.

rgds,
bolti as Kpadma calls me

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1788

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

02 Apr 2004, 19:34
This question is debatable. There are two weak points in the statement given by the objecting council.

How do we refute the city council's claim. Either show that the data it is providing as evidence is false or the consequence of the truthfullness of that data is pretty serious.

B says majority of the accidents caused are by drunk drivers. What if there were only 10 accidents in a year.

C says the numbers provided by the city council about no of drunk drivers is wrong.

One can always come out and say even if those 10 accidents can be stopped then it is worth the try.

I liked C better.

I have seen a similar Q in Kaplan about diceases caused pollution and the answer is similar to one provided by C where the data provided as evidence is invalidated

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 0

02 Apr 2004, 19:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# A City police department plans to set up a special task

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

Moderators: GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne 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®.