New legislation would require a seven-day waiting period in the sale

New legislation would require a seven-day waiting period in the sale of handguns to private individuals, in order that records of prisons could be checked and the sale of handguns to people likely to hurt other people thereby prevented. People opposed to this legislation claim that prison records are so full of errors that the proposed law would prevent as many law-abiding citizens as criminals from having access to handguns.
If the claim made by people opposed to the new legislation is true, which one of the following is a principle that, if established, would do the most to justify opposition to the new legislation on the basis of that claim?
(A) The rights of law-abiding citizens are more worthy of protection than are the rights of criminals.
(B) Nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

A talks about the protection of rights of law-abiding citizens against the rights of criminals. This passage is solely in connection with LEGISLATION and not rights or protection or bla bla..

POTENTIAL is the key word in B. Law abiding citizens could be potential criminals however Potential criminals need not necessarily turn into true criminals. The idea is not to restrict potential criminals who coincidentally may be law abiding citizens (as stated in option B). In this way actual law abiding citizens would not be prevented from having access to handguns.

There4 B is correct

I also "fell" for A. IMO, A and B are saying the same thing. In A it is implied that nothing be done so that the rights of law-abiding citizens are not infringed upon. In B, they just come out and say it.

AHH. Thanks. I guess I glossed over the word "potential"...good reminder to slow down and read more carefuly. In that event it's an unequivocal B

B

People opposed to the legislation claim that law-abiding citizens will also get affected.
B) => clearly supports this. -- Nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

I voted for option B.

Stimulus -- proposed law would prevent as many law-abiding citizens as criminals from having access to handguns.

Option B -- Law abiding citizens should not be grouped together criminals and restrictions placed on them.

B in 2min2sec.
nice question, somewhat similar to real test qs.
(A) The rights of law-abiding citizens are more worthy of protection than are the rights of criminals. << TRICK! we talk about limitation of rights, not of their protection!
(B) Nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens. << correct
(C) Legislation should not be enacted if no benefit could accrue to society as a << there are benefits in limiting criminals' access to guns
(D) No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise unless sale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people. << guns clearly endanger people, so this option is junk
(E) Even citizens who are neither fugitives nor felons should not be permitted to own a handgun unless they have received adequate training. << training is out of scope

B it is,as its clear that citizens are being harmed here because of the law for criminals.

Hi,
Could someone explain what B means?
I couldn't understand the language

Can someone please explain why (D) isn't the answer?

Pre-Thinking: Law abiding citizens must not be prevented from possessing a gun even at the cost of some criminals obtaining one.

A) The rights of law-abiding citizens are more worthy of protection than are the rights of criminals.
This answer choice is a perfect trap. Placed right as the first option and first half is correct.
1st Half: Rights of Law abiding citizens are "more worthy" of protection"- correct
2nd Half: Than are "rights" of criminals- incorrect. Should be: Than are "dangers" from the criminals (in possession of a gun).

(B) Nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens.:
At the first glace, this statement seems a bit extreme- "Nothing should be done". But the tone of the passage suggest that we need to look for a satirical interjection: (so, you mean to say that) nothing should be done to restrict criminals because some law abiding citizens are denied an access to a hand gun. Hence, this answer choice stands correct (on a closer analysis).

(C) Legislation should not be enacted if no benefit could accrue to society as a whole:
Benefit of criminals- incorrect. (dangers from criminals).

(D) No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise unless sale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people.
Merchandise- gun.
Opposite statement. Supporting the legislation.

(E) Even citizens who are neither fugitives nor felons should not be permitted to own a handgun unless they have received adequate training.:
Training: Out of scope to the topic in discussion.

There is nothing in the prompt about "rights of criminals". So, that should move you to B. More worthy is vague. Would more worthy necessitate the action proposed by the opponents? I am not sure.

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.
_________________