The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme

Question

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

anairamitch1804 · Accepted Answer

Conclusion :- “Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American”.
The rule for assumption is that if the assumption is reversed (also called "flip it"), the conclusion doesn't hold.

The argument basically says that since Americans don't use driving licenses for any purposes other than identification for driving, the usage of such licenses for other identification is "un-american". Ask yourself that what would the author have to assume for this to hold good? From the answer choices, flip all the choices and see whether this argument can be nullified. Lets see-

A says The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. The flipped version would say "The next presidential election will NOT be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries". Since this has no bearing on the argument, we can easily eliminate this one.

The flipped version of B says "The government will NOT soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers "dissidents."" Does this somehow affect the identification is 'un-American' argument? No. So eliminate this one too.

Flipped C : "Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are NOT contrary to the traditions of American culture and law." CORRECT. If Blanket restrictions on law abiding individuals were NOT contrary to the traditions of the American culture and law, the author couldn't have concluded that the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "un-american" and so the argument would NOT hold. So this is the answer!!

Flipped D: The majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. (In order to flip sentences that have a Not, remove the NOT). Even if the majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel without identification, it has no bearing whether the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "Un-American". So this CANNOT be the answer!

Flipped E: Americans should NOT resist all government regulation of their lives. No bearing, so eliminate this too

Hence C.

blueseas · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

The conclusion of this argument is that the national identification system (“using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle”) is un-American. The basis for this claim is that such a system would allow the government to restrict the liberty of its people. The necessary assumption is one that connects restrictions on liberties to the concept of “un-American” policies.

(A) The author never mentions future presidential elections, or the role of the president in such a national identification system. Therefore, the conclusion that the national identification system is un-American does not depend on this assumption.

(B) Whether the government will soon, or will ever, start curtailing the activities of dissidents is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if the government does not abuse the power the national identification system provides, the system could still be considered un-American.

(C) CORRECT. This choice connects the concept of "un-American" policies to restrictions on liberties, essentially defining blanket restrictions on citizens as un-American.

(D) Whether Americans are willing to give up their right to travel freely is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if Americans were willing to give up their right to move about without identification, the system could still be considered un-American.

(E) While the author may be inclined to agree that Americans should resist the government regulation of their lives that the national identification system represents, this argument does not depend on such an assumption. In fact, the author makes a distinction between the national identification system and “licenses for purposes…directly related to operating a motor vehicle,” so it is possible that the author considers some government regulation reasonable.

appuvar · Answer

My take is C... byPOE

A. Not a Choice as OUt of scope.
B is ruled out!
C. SO SO...Doesn't appear to be a clearcut assumption
D.Argument doesn't talk abt the right to travel although there is a reference of driver's license. rule it out!
E. Rule it out straight away...as it is generalization against all the govt regs.

As A,B,D,E are not the choices, C is the answer by POE. c appears to be an inference rather than an assumption...

GyanOne · Answer

: There is no information at all here about the Presidential election. Incorrect. 
 : There is no reference to "dissidents", either directly or indirectly in the stimulus. Incorrect. 
 : If using licenses as identification is un-American and could lead to restriction on movement, then the restrictions are also un-American, and therefore contrary to American culture and law. CORRECT.
 : The stimulus says nothing about what the majority of Americans feel. Incorrect. 
 : This is an over-generalization. If Americans ought to oppose some restriction on their freedom, it does not mean that they should oppose all government regulation of their lives. Incorrect.

C is the right answer.

WpackAlumDukeBound · Answer

+1 C

This seems like a real good GMAT question to answer your question. It has a great trap answer (D) and the wording feels right to me.

D can not possibly be the answer because Americans ARE currently required to travel and move about WITH identification. Choice D is a direct contradiction to the stated facts - the passage states that  not directly  related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American]. This statement tells you that licenses ARE directly used for operating a motor vehicle. And using common sense, that's what a Driver's License is. It's the law to drive with a Driver's License, you get a ticket if you're driving without one. All modes of traveling aside from hitch-hiking and just straight walking to where you're going require some form of ID. The premise is talking about adding to that restriction, using a Driver License to put more restriction in addition to the travel laws that currently exist.

hwgmat2015 · Answer

Lets understand the premise first and identify the conclusion . Premise: Using licenses for other purposes apart from driving is un-American. Conclusion:- Such requirement will restrict movement as well as make other limits on freedom acceptable. Now the choice that we need to find is the option that strengthens the conclusion or links the premise with the conclusion. In option D: Even if American give up their right to travel how does it matter? So negating the argument does not shatter the conclusion. If we observe carefully right to travel is not discussed in the passage. However, option C- It mentions blanket restrictions are contrary to American traditions. Because restrictions are uncommon the government can implement new restrictions. Negating this option directly shatters the conclusion. if restrictions are not contrary then new restrictions might already be implemented. Again observe carefully, this option talks something that is given in the premise. By using POE you can filter out the correct choice. try it. Kudos if this helped !! :-D

niteshwaghray · Answer

IMO the OA:C is correct.

Okay, lets break this down.

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.

Argument the author uses to support that conclusion is : the use of licence as anything other than a permit to drive is un-American because it would be equivalent to carrying papers and would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

Now, we need to find out which statement is the assumption that the author is making in order to argue that the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. --  This one doesn't talk anything about why the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American. Eliminate.  
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.” --  This is something that could happen if licence is used as national identification. But this still doesn't talk about by its un-American. 
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law. --  This one states that its contrary to american culture and law to impose restrictions on law-abiding individuals. If restrictions on law-abiding individuals is against the American culture and law, and if the govt can impose restrictions by using the licence as ID, then this clearly explains why the use of licence as ID is un-American.  
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. --  This one also doesn't talk about why is the use of licence as ID un-American. 
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives. --  This is clearly wrong as this is not an assumption at all. This statement implores Americans to resist govt regulation. This does not support the author's argument.

Shivz · Answer

Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?

KarishmaB · Answer

Argument:

- Proposed new requirements for driver’s licenses would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. 
- This is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” 
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. 
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Conclusion: Proposed new req are un-American.

What is the assumption? 
The argument tells us that the new requirements are un-American. It tells us that the new requirements could limit freedom. The assumption could be that which links limiting freedom to un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
Irrelevant

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
The problem is that the govt "could" curtail activities. What it is will actually do is beyond our argument. The ability to curtail freedom is the problem itself.

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
Again, this is irrelevant. What the Americans want or are willing to do is not the point here. The argument does not assume that the citizens will have problems. The argument is just saying that the ability of the govt to control is unacceptable. The citizens may have no problems. Still the restrictions are un-American. For example, a person may not have issues if his/her spouse mentally harasses her/him - but that doesn't make the harassment acceptable. 
 
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Again, the argument does not assume anything about what people will or ought to do. It talks about what the govt should not do.

Answer (C)

pk123 · Answer

Hi Karishma,

thanks for the answer but for me answer is easy once you find conclusion. but i got confused between unamerican as conclusion or last line this would make other limits as conclusion.

Agree that unamerican one comes with because which explains why it is unamerican and i too agree on this...I thought this is a intermediate conclusion

THe final conclusion is this could make other limits on freedom acceptable ....any conclusion should pass "Why"test unless prediction/recommendation is there...

Last line passes the test as in why this could make other limits acceptable because new proposal is unamerican and such requirements restrict the movements and activities.... moreover last line is a short of future prediction, "in time "

Need your expert reply

KarishmaB · Answer

Note that everything after un-American is an explanation of why it is un-American. Just that it is split into multiple sentences.

This is un-American because 
- it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” 
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. 
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Hence the only conclusion is that it is un-American.

Besides no other choice can be an assumption of the argument.

KaranB1 · Answer

C vs D.

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American

Premise: because it would require U.S citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers".

Prompt does not assume that Americans are not willing to give up travel or move without documents. Rather prompt assumes that require American citizens to carry documents to move is un-American.

Therefore, C is the best answer choice and we can safely eliminate D and all the other answer choices.

AKG1593 · Answer

I was confused between C and D. Others are out of scope/context.
Somehow I chose D because it talks about the majority of Americans *NOT* willing to give up their right to move freely without id.

If I negate D : it means "Americans are willing to give up the right to move freely without ID". How would the requirement, which is basically the argument, be "un-American" without this assumption?

C looked a bit vague for the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

KaranB1 · Answer

Willing is not an issue at hand and does not affect the conclusion.

It is about the tradition of the country and non-adherence is deemed as non-American.

Eg. If I say that wearing western cloth is non-indian does not mean that Indians are not willing to wear western clothes.

Shivangisharmaa · Answer

Can someone pls explain how we understood that 'Using licenses...is un-American' is the conclusion?
I took the conclusion to be the last line 'In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable'.

Thank you in advance

ReedArnoldMPREP · Answer

Every part of a CR argument is one of four things: premise, conclusion, counterpoint, or background. Background is dull--just information to 'ground' you in the argument. Counterpoints can have their own full 'premise conclusion,' and some premises are also 'intermediate conclusions,' but everything should fit into these buckets.

If 'this could make other limits on freedom acceptable' is the main conclusion, then what role does the 'using licenses is unamerican' play? It's not background--it's far too opinionated. It's not a counterpoint--it fits in line with the author's argument. So it's either premise or conclusion. If it's a premise, it supports the conclusion. If it's a conclusion, it's supported by the premise.

For such a situation, use the 'therefore/because' test:

'Using licenses is unamerican; therefore, it could make other limits on freedom acceptable.'
(Using licenses could make other limits on freedom acceptable because it is unamerican).

Or

'Using licenses could make other limits on freedom acceptable; therefore, it is unamerican.'
(it is unamerican to use licenses because it could make other limits on freedom acceptable).

The second version makes sense--the first does not. So the main conclusion is that using licenses this way is unamerican.

We have a bit of an intermediate conclusion with the statement you thought was the conclusion. The logic of the argument is something like:

Using licenses as nat'l ID ~ carring papers ---> allow governments to track movements--->could bring other limits on freedom----->using licenses this way is unamerican

Since the possible new limits on freedom is based on the premises that using nat'l IDs could lead to the gov't tracking movements, it is a 'conclusion.' But it also supports the main conclusion, so it's a 'premise.' These are what we typically call 'intermediate conclusion,' or 'premises for which support is provided.'

Its_me_aka_ak · Answer

i assumed that the conclusion is "In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable." so i went with B. where did i go wrong for seeing the conclusion.

Kratosgmat · Answer

Conclusion : Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American 
CONCEPT
 1. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American 
2. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”

How do we link 1 and 2
GAP :
 requiring U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” is un-American - Basically what C says.

Suyash1331 · Answer

I think all the other options are so vague and out of context from the passage that it is very easy to get to the answer by the process of elimination.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards