Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 24 May 2017, 03:28

### 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

# New legislation would require a seven-day waiting period in

Author Message
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 596
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 0

New legislation would require a seven-day waiting period in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2005, 17:50
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
(C) Legislation should not be enacted if no benefit could accrue to society as a result of that legislation.
(D) No restrictions should be placed on the sale of merchandise unless sale of that merchandise could endanger innocent people.
(E) Even citizens who are neither fugitives nor felons should not be permitted to own a handgun unless they have received adequate training.
_________________

Regards, S

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1790
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2005, 18:23
proposed law would prevent as many law-abiding citizens as criminals from having access to handguns.

(A) and (B) are the contenders.

(A) wins because no one is talking about putting restrictions on law abiding citizens. The errors cause the law abiding citizens not to have the handguns. This cannot be treated as a restriction.
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Posts: 9
Location: LA,CA
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2005, 18:53
The question is asking us to "justify" the opposition i.e. strengthen the claim from opposition side. Answer (E) fits best.

_________________

CHANCE FAVORS THE PREPARED MINDS !

Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 596
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 05:07
OA is B. can somebody explain? I am not able to undersatnd the question itself? Can somebody elaborate it plz?
S
_________________

Regards, S

VP
Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 1436
Followers: 2

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

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 08:42
"B".

Bet "A" and "B" I pick "B". In general the stem is saying that in order to prevent one bad person to do something, one shudn't generalize that rule and prevent everyone else also. No where it hints that bad person has lesser rights than a good person.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 596
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 13:28
Can somebody explain what question is being asked?
S
_________________

Regards, S

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1790
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 13:46
saurya_s wrote:
Can somebody explain what question is being asked?
S

Proposal:
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.

There are people who oppose and there are people who favor this proposal.
Now the people who oppose 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 whatever the opponents are saying is true if the ligislation is infact not passed then how can one justify that act or on what priciples can one justify not passing the legislation?

If the principle is that "dont do anything to restrict the crimnals at the cost of restricting law abiding citizens" then whatever opponents are saying can be justified.

Basically the argument is asking what is justification given by the opponents.?
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1790
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 6

Kudos [?]: 101 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 13:51
Hi saurya,

I got your 4 CRs wrong. But I am happy that I could nail down the closest one.

Anand.
Director
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 596
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 234 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 14:37
Indeed Anand, you have already crossed the GMAT hurdle. I really appreciate your help in getting guys like me to understand things.
Best wishes and regards
S
_________________

Regards, S

SVP
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 2236
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 342 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2005, 16:32
It says since there are error in prison records, law-abiding people would be restricted as well as criminals from buying guns if this law passes. Therefore it shouldn't be passed.

Why? Because we can't hurt innocent people just because we want to restrict criminals.

Check this versas B then you know it is right.

(B) Nothing should be done to restrict potential criminals at the cost of placing restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Btw saurya_s perhaps you could delay just a bit before you post your OAs?
Re: CR Legislation   [#permalink] 25 Feb 2005, 16:32
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
The state legislature has proposed a law that would require 8 26 Dec 2011, 02:10
City Council Member: The new law requiring all new drivers 1 16 Jun 2011, 00:01
Legislators in New Victoria are debating a plan to reduce 7 11 Jul 2010, 19:51
Give it a whirl... -- In accordance with new legislation, 8 26 Jun 2010, 09:57
1 Attention - this forum has a new posting requirement - you 2 02 Sep 2009, 08:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by