Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 04:11 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 04:11
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
655-705 Level|   Weaken|                  
User avatar
manrasingh
User avatar
Joined: 19 May 2023
Last visit: 13 Aug 2025
Posts: 77
Own Kudos:
34
Given Kudos: 85
Location: India
Schools: ISB (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q86 V82 DI84
GPA: 7.7
Schools: ISB (S)
GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q86 V82 DI84
Posts: 77
Kudos: 34
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to 09 Oct 2024, 06:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi KarishmaB
Thanks for getting back. I have a follow up in Doubt 2)

Doubt 2)
In option 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.
It can also be the case that in the states where the seat belt laws are not mandatory, some people choose to wear belts. In that scenario, it can be the case that people who choose not to wear belts cause harm to : [people wearing the belts + people not wearing the belts + passerbys].

Doubt 2a
As per you, injuries for passerbys are same for both the scenarios and we can ignore it. However, I am still not convinced here. What if people not wearing seatbelts drive recklessly and cause more injuries.

Doubt 2b
But what about the injuries caused to [people wearing the belts] by [people not wearing the belts]. This would be considered as "others" right? Or is it a jump in inference to say that [people wearing the belts] will be affected in this case?

KarishmaB
Doubt 1)
In option 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.
how do we know that we have to consider financial harm as well? The passage mentions harm and my thinking was to consider only bodily harm and not other kinds of harms hence I rejected it


Harm doesn't mean only bodily harm. It can be any kind of harm. Besides, what else can be the answer? No other option is relevant. Only this option discusses financial harm to others and since we are looking for harm caused to others, this has to be the answer.



Doubt 2)
In option 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.
Why are we saying that "People not wearing seat belts are harming themselves. The argument says that is acceptable." The argument says that "people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks." does "others" not include other people not wearing the seatbelts themselves? We can also think it like, an automobile driver not wearing a seatbelt harming a passerby. Would this statement not help in weakening the impact here?

We need to understand and deduce what is reasonable. The only role of a seat belt is in deciding how much bodily harm is faced by the person in the car when the car is involved in an accident. The harm caused to an outsider on the street is the same irrespective of whether the driver was wearing a seat belt or not. A seta belt will not save a pedestrian. So by not wearing a seat belt, the driver is only risking himself, not the person on the street. The person on the street faces the exact same risk, whether the driver wears a seatbelt or not. The rate of fatalities increase because the people in the car face higher risk.
Hence option (D) is irrelevant.
Show more
User avatar
curiouscanary13
User avatar
Joined: 11 Aug 2024
Last visit: 20 Nov 2025
Posts: 9
Own Kudos:
1
Given Kudos: 10
Location: India
Concentration: International Business, Finance
Posts: 9
Kudos: 1
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to 17 Jul 2025, 13:30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Because we are concerned about the harm that is caused by the people taking risks on other. The premise supports that one can take risks given that it doesnt harm others while the option B supports this assuption since financial harm is involved.
ExecMBA2010
manojgmat


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.
Show Spoiler
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?

Comments welcome.
Show more
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts