It is currently 21 Sep 2017, 09:05

# Happening Now:

Live Chat with Amy Mitson, Sr. Associate Director of Admissions at Tuck Dartmouth

### 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

# City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Status: Finally Done. Admitted in Kellogg for 2015 intake
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 3957 [1], given: 217

Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V45
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2012, 12:24
1
KUDOS
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (01:54) correct 30% (01:48) wrong based on 321 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers to take a drivers' education course is a good one, because studies have shown that new drivers who complete drivers' education courses are much less likely to get into accidents. However, passing this law doesn't mean that we should repeal our city's existing law requiring new drivers to hang a "New Driver" sign from their back window. Our city's drivers will start assuming that all drivers are safe drivers because of the courses, and they won't be extra careful when driving around new drivers. But despite the improvement in their driving due to the courses, new drivers are still much more likely to cause accidents than are experienced drivers, and the drivers around them need to be extra wary in order to avoid accidents, so removing the signs will lead to more accidents.

What role do the two underlined statements play in the city council member's argument?

A) The first provides the basis for a plan, and the second endorses that plan

B) The first states a cause-and-effect relationship that the speaker believes will happen again in the case under consideration, while the second acknowledges an exception to that cause-and-effect relationship.

C)The first is a general principle, while the second is a specific application of that principle.

D The first suggests the positive impact of a decision on the issue at hand, while the second states a belief that other factors will outweigh its positive impact

E ) The first acknowleges a weakness in the speaker's argument, while the second states his argument.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
How come the answer is D?
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Best Regards,
E.

MGMAT 1 --> 530
MGMAT 2--> 640
MGMAT 3 ---> 610
GMAT ==> 730

Last edited by broall on 08 Jul 2017, 20:46, edited 1 time in total.
Reformatted question

Kudos [?]: 3957 [1], given: 217

Manager
Status: Employed
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Posts: 98

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 10

Location: Pakistan
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.2
WE: Business Development (Internet and New Media)
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2012, 20:38
It's a bad question. Nowhere does it state that the new law also means that there will be no "new driver" signs on cars. It just says that "it does not mean we should get rid of the sign". Even though D is the best choice, it is ultimately a very weak one. Thats my two cents..
_________________

"Nowadays, people know the price of everything, and the value of nothing." Oscar Wilde

Kudos [?]: 162 [0], given: 10

Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Posts: 190

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 51

GPA: 3.5
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Jan 2012, 22:11
A,C and E are clearly out of scope.
B,the first underlined part is cause and effect, ie.if new drivers complete drivers' education courses then they are much less likely to get into accidents but the second underlined part is not an acknowledgement as the "New Driver" sign is not an exception.
D,
First underlined part:
drivers' education course-->positive impact--> less accidents.
Second underlined part:
drivers' education course-->remove "New Driver" sign(other factors)-->will lead to more accidents(outweigh positive impact of course)

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 51

Director
Status: Finally Done. Admitted in Kellogg for 2015 intake
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 3957 [0], given: 217

Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V45
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2012, 13:48
Many thanks goalset. Appreciate your help.
_________________

Best Regards,
E.

MGMAT 1 --> 530
MGMAT 2--> 640
MGMAT 3 ---> 610
GMAT ==> 730

Kudos [?]: 3957 [0], given: 217

Current Student
Joined: 11 Oct 2009
Posts: 99

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 24

Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Technology
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2012, 14:04
The first is a premise (because) and the second is the counter premise(despite). The answer should reflect this - D.

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 24

Manager
Joined: 08 Nov 2014
Posts: 93

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 90

Location: India
GPA: 3
WE: Engineering (Manufacturing)
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2015, 11:00
Under-lined statement can be re-stated as:
1) Drivers education course reduces the likeliness of accident among the new drivers.>>>> Education is a"Cause" for reduced accidents "'effect"
2) New drivers, despite completing the course successfully are more likely to cause accidents than are experienced.So,they should keep the sign board of "new driver" >>>>>>> Only education will not reduce the accidents ,other factors such as sign are also important
Conclusion : Removing signs of new driver will result in more accidents.
_________________

"Arise, Awake and Stop not till the goal is reached"

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 90

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Apr 2017, 04:12
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 253 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 808

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 744

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2017, 11:41
this is a question from Kaplan, and D is more precise than B is.
Well, I guess test takers must work hard on gmat, there is no other ways to go around.

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 744

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1024

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 498

Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 03:50
There are only two choice that come close B and D
Lets analyze both of them .
B The first states a cause-and-effect relationship that the speaker believes will happen again in the case under consideration, while the second acknowledges an exception to that cause-and-effect relationship.
Line from the argument "Studies have shown that new drivers who complete drivers' education courses are much less likely to get into accidents "
Makes it very clear that it is an outcome of the program , but this is happening now and the program was not implemented before.

However, passing this law doesn't mean that we should repeal our city's existing law requiring new drivers to hang a "New Driver" sign from their back window. Our city's drivers will start assuming that all drivers are safe drivers because of the courses, and they won't be extra careful when driving around new drivers

Second statement is not an exception it is the result of the highlighted condition if it does happen
So B is not our answer.

Option D
The first suggests the positive impact of a decision on the issue at hand, while the second states a belief that other factors will outweigh its positive impact
From argument it is clear that the first statement is indeed a positive aspect of the new program

[b]new drivers are still much more likely to cause accidents than are experienced drivers[/b]
Second statement is an outcome that outweigh the positive outcomes of the program .
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Last edited by arvind910619 on 09 Jul 2017, 05:01, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 498

Director
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 808

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 744

Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 20:41
arvind910619 wrote:
There are only two choice that come close B and D
Lets analyze both of them .
B The first states a cause-and-effect relationship that the speaker believes will happen again in the case under consideration, while the second acknowledges an exception to that cause-and-effect relationship.
Line from the argument "Studies have shown that new drivers who complete drivers' education courses are much less likely to get into accidents "
Makes it very clear that it is an outcome of the program , but this is happening now and the program was not implemented before.

However, passing this law doesn't mean that we should repeal our city's existing law requiring new drivers to hang a "New Driver" sign from their back window. Our city's drivers will start assuming that all drivers are safe drivers because of the courses, and they won't be extra careful when driving around new drivers

Second statement is not an exception it is an result of the highlighted condition if it does happen
So B is not our answer.

Option D
The first suggests the positive impact of a decision on the issue at hand, while the second states a belief that other factors will outweigh its positive impact
From argument it is clear that the first statement is indeed a positive aspect of the new program

[b]new drivers are still much more likely to cause accidents than are experienced drivers[/b]
Second statement is an outcome that outweigh the positive outcomes of the program .

One other way to get fully understanding of the argument in order to get the right answer is to spot "despite improve...." => clearly, the role of the second seems to undermine the role of the first => D has the word "outweigh positive" => D is correct

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 744

Re: City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2017, 20:41
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
17 Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and 15 07 Jun 2017, 08:20
1 If the city council institutes new parking regulations, city revenues 3 08 May 2017, 05:45
3 The city council will certainly vote to approve the new 8 31 Mar 2014, 09:48
5 The state legislature has proposed a law that required all new cars 11 12 Feb 2017, 11:44
3 The city council of Greensville has passed a new law in an effort to r 1 09 Mar 2017, 17:01
Display posts from previous: Sort by