Last visit was: 11 Jul 2025, 14:32 It is currently 11 Jul 2025, 14:32
Close
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
655-705 Level|   Weaken|         
User avatar
rohitgoel15
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
Last visit: 29 Jan 2018
Posts: 184
Own Kudos:
3,092
 [31]
Given Kudos: 20
Schools: HEC '15 (A)
Posts: 184
Kudos: 3,092
 [31]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
23
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
tryingharder
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Last visit: 17 Jan 2011
Posts: 56
Own Kudos:
79
 [6]
Given Kudos: 3
Posts: 56
Kudos: 79
 [6]
6
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
avatar
Gryphon
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Last visit: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 110
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
Location: United States
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
avatar
Gryphon
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Last visit: 06 Jul 2012
Posts: 110
Own Kudos:
44
 [2]
Given Kudos: 10
Location: United States
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tryingharder
Gryphon
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.

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 :wink: (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 :-D

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
User avatar
Dreamy
Joined: 30 Jun 2010
Last visit: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 263
Own Kudos:
31
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6
Status:Upset about the verbal score - SC, CR and RC are going to be my friend
Posts: 263
Kudos: 31
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
ezhilkumarank
Joined: 24 Jun 2010
Last visit: 08 May 2014
Posts: 272
Own Kudos:
724
 [1]
Given Kudos: 50
Status:Time to step up the tempo
Location: Milky way
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
Schools:ISB, Tepper - CMU, Chicago Booth, LSB
Posts: 272
Kudos: 724
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
User avatar
AN225
Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Last visit: 01 Mar 2017
Posts: 233
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 48
Status:Happy to join ROSS!
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Products:
Posts: 233
Kudos: 293
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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
User avatar
amit2k9
Joined: 08 May 2009
Last visit: 18 Jun 2017
Posts: 538
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 10
Status:There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Posts: 538
Kudos: 624
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
B it is,as its clear that citizens are being harmed here because of the law for criminals.
avatar
GMAT0010
Joined: 17 Sep 2019
Last visit: 08 Dec 2022
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 516
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q49 V33
Posts: 108
Kudos: 54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,
Could someone explain what B means?
I couldn't understand the language
:D
avatar
azamatboden
Joined: 04 Apr 2020
Last visit: 01 Sep 2022
Posts: 42
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 14
Posts: 42
Kudos: 18
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can someone please explain why (D) isn't the answer?
avatar
Shobhit7
Joined: 01 Feb 2017
Last visit: 29 Apr 2021
Posts: 241
Own Kudos:
397
 [1]
Given Kudos: 148
Posts: 241
Kudos: 397
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
avatar
shrgmat
Joined: 11 Nov 2020
Last visit: 25 Dec 2021
Posts: 44
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 82
Posts: 44
Kudos: 15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gryphon
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.

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.
User avatar
VerbalBot
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Last visit: 04 Jan 2021
Posts: 18,437
Own Kudos:
Posts: 18,437
Kudos: 953
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
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.
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7349 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
235 posts