GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Sep 2018, 16:55

### 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

# Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2008
Posts: 127
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 01:19
1
8
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

70% (00:57) correct 30% (01:10) wrong based on 423 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free
society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks.
As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.

oa-b
Current Student
Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Posts: 1776
Location: United States (NC)
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
Schools: UNC (Kenan-Flagler) - Class of 2013
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 08:22
5
2
manojgmat wrote:
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free
society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks.
As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.

oa-b

You are trying to prove that people not wearing seatbelts WILL somehow incur harm onto others who do.
A. Irrelevant
B. MAYBE - although this isnt physical harm but it is financial harm
C. irrelevant
D. seems to refer to the people not wearing seatbelts and does not say anything about harming others.
E. proves author's point about not harming others

B - financial harm is still harm
_________________

##### General Discussion
Intern
Joined: 30 Sep 2009
Posts: 45
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Oct 2009, 08:53
2
1
Since this is the only option which says that because of the non-helmet wearing class, the helmet wearing class is affected as they have to pay higher premium.
Intern
Joined: 18 Oct 2009
Posts: 43
Schools: Queen's E-MBA
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 21:22
manojgmat wrote:

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
oa-b

Pl can someone explain why D cannot be correct ans. D indicates that rate of fatalities are higher in state where people are not mandated to wear seta belts. Does it not mean such fatalities involve others hence harm others. With this answer, of course, there is an underlying assumption that people of the state where law is not mandated, really do not wear the seat belts. This assumption maybe wrong and people may wear seat belts even w/out mandate, but such inference is too long drawn, isn't it?

_________________

Please give KUDOS if you like the post

Manager
Joined: 26 May 2005
Posts: 193
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Feb 2010, 21:46
1
1
siddhartho wrote:
manojgmat wrote:

D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
oa-b

Pl can someone explain why D cannot be correct ans. D indicates that rate of fatalities are higher in state where people are not mandated to wear seta belts. Does it not mean such fatalities involve others hence harm others. With this answer, of course, there is an underlying assumption that people of the state where law is not mandated, really do not wear the seat belts. This assumption maybe wrong and people may wear seat belts even w/out mandate, but such inference is too long drawn, isn't it?

D - higher rate could be because of higher traffic or not good road conditions --- and also there is no guarantee that the accidents are caused by drivers without seat belts.

B - makes a points that because of non-seat belt guys insurance rates go up and therby they are causing harm to others and weakens the conclusion.

B
Intern
Joined: 21 May 2009
Posts: 10
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2010, 06:19
Quote:
Pl can someone explain why D cannot be correct ans.

in D,as well in E the decision to wear or not to wear the seat bealt is up to individual passenger.Whatever passengers decide in such cases-individual decisions correspond to individual risks.In worst scenario passenger would hurm nobody but himself/herself

In option B the consequences of the individual decisions are no longer the issue of "passenger's own business'' - high frequency of injuries spoils statistics,which causes the rates go up -everybody loses .
VP
Joined: 17 Feb 2010
Posts: 1233
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 May 2010, 13:36
B shows that because of some people not wearing seat belts all automobile owners insurance will go up......which means financially harm others.
Manager
Status: Target MBA
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Posts: 151
Location: Singapore
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Sep 2011, 10:02
manojgmat wrote:
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free
society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks.
As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
A. Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.

oa-b

I went with (E) because statistics show that greater number of passengers who do not wear seat-belts are injured. So safety is a concern.
(B), however, talks about financial loss. Since OA is (B), financial loss perhaps is a greater concern than safety compromise.
_________________

Thanks and Regards,
GM.

Intern
Joined: 12 May 2012
Posts: 24
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Human Resources
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passen  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jun 2012, 20:01
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks. As a result, they concluded that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?

A.Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fastens when someone sits in the front
B. Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.
C. Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
D. The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
E. In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.
Senior Manager
Status: Final Countdown
Joined: 17 Mar 2010
Posts: 479
Location: India
GPA: 3.82
WE: Account Management (Retail Banking)
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jun 2012, 06:19
...." as long as the people do not harm other as a result of taking the risks".

(E) never said that the greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured are actually injured by themselves or by some one else?
(B) " Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

+1 for (B)
_________________

" Make more efforts "
Press Kudos if you liked my post

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2258
Location: New York, NY
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Sep 2012, 22:13
2
2
Conclusion: Each person makes his/her decision regarding wearing the seat belt.

Support: Free society, as long as ppl don't harm others in their risk-taking actions

How do we weaken this?
1) Opposite of the conclusion: Each person does NOT make his/her own decision
2) Opposite the support: Show that ppl DO harm others in their actions

(B) is an example of the second option. As a result of the risks taken of people NOT wearing seatbelts, others are harmed. The insurance rates are higher.

(D) says that when there is a seat belt law, the rate of fatalities is lower. This is a correlational observation.
Answer choice (D) is about the effectiveness of a seatbelt law. If this question were about finding information to support legislation for seatbelt law in order to reduce fatalities, then this would be a great choice. However, we are looking to weaken the conclusion that each person can make his/her decision regarding seat belts.

(D) does not do either option 1 or option 2. It doesn't really weaken the conclusion. It comments about the effectiveness of a seatbelt law, but that is not relevant to the argument of interest in this passage.
VP
Joined: 09 Jun 2010
Posts: 1059
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2012, 03:05
[quote="gmatpill"]Conclusion: Each person makes his/her decision regarding wearing the seat belt.

Support: Free society, as long as ppl don't harm others in their risk-taking actions

How do we weaken this?
1) Opposite of the conclusion: Each person does NOT make his/her own decision
2) Opposite the support: Show that ppl DO harm others in their actions

(B) is an example of the second option. As a result of the risks taken of people NOT wearing seatbelts, others are harmed. The insurance rates are higher.

(D) says that when there is a seat belt law, the rate of fatalities is lower. This is a correlational observation.
Answer choice (D) is about the effectiveness of a seatbelt law. If this question were about finding information to support legislation for seatbelt law in order to reduce fatalities, then this would be a great choice. However, we are looking to weaken the conclusion that each person can make his/her decision regarding seat belts.

(D) does not do either option 1 or option 2. It doesn't really weaken the conclusion. It comments about the effectiveness of a seatbelt law, but that is not relevant to the argument of interest in this passage.[/quote

Thank you experts,
Can you detail what you do before you go to answer choices for this question. we want to learn what do you do after you read and realize the conclusion of argument and before you look at the answer choices so that we can imitate the proces of doing a weaken question.
Intern
Joined: 27 Apr 2013
Posts: 12
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GPA: 3.97
Re: CR - Opponents of laws  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2013, 10:54
jake wrote:
Quote:
Pl can someone explain why D cannot be correct ans.

in D,as well in E the decision to wear or not to wear the seat bealt is up to individual passenger.Whatever passengers decide in such cases-individual decisions correspond to individual risks.In worst scenario passenger would hurm nobody but himself/herself

In option B the consequences of the individual decisions are no longer the issue of "passenger's own business'' - high frequency of injuries spoils statistics,which causes the rates go up -everybody loses .

Thank you for this explanation.
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2017
Posts: 4
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jun 2017, 08:20
As the question stem says to weaken the conclusion, which is it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt. So, to weaken it the option we can say it is not upto the driver or passengers to decide whether they wear seat belt or not. And A exactly says that.
I am able to comprehend B also and I agree that it is harming others. But the question stem is saying to weaken the conclusion and not the argument as a whole.
Intern
Joined: 03 Dec 2015
Posts: 14
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Feb 2018, 08:14
1
I do understand that option B is correct. However, what is the problem with option A?
Conclusion is its each person's decision..
Option A implies that new car has seatbelts that automatically faster. What's the issue - is it "new cars"

Experts,

- Nikhil
Re: Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and &nbs [#permalink] 02 Feb 2018, 08:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.