Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to

Question

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 people do not harm others 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?

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.

shaselai · Accepted Answer

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

GMATPill · Answer

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?
Think about the following:
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.

hitman4683v1 · Answer

The answer should be B.
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.

ExecMBA2010 · Answer

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.

chix475ntu · Answer

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

seekmba · Answer

B shows that because of some people not wearing seat belts all automobile owners insurance will go up......which means financially harm others.

gautammalik · Answer

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.

nikhilbhide · Answer

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,
Please reply.

- Nikhil

TheNightKing · Answer

At first I was going with C

Coming back to the question. Key highlight: free society people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks. So the opponents are assuming there is no harm (of any kind) to others. And we need to weaken it, So we need to find something that will harm others. (A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat. It does not talk about how it can harm others. Also it specifies front seat and the argument mentions passengers in the car. (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. If I have to pay more because other people are causing more accidents since they are not wearing seat belts is definitely a harm. So looks good. (C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings. I still don't believe I was picking this one

(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. That is great statistically and in a way it supports the fact we should put on seat belts. But it does nor harm the conclusion that others are being harmed in such an act. (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. Okay. Now we are just talking about what happens in an accident.

Aviral1995 · Answer

Although i marked choice D as the answer when i saw the question first time, but i think the confusion is b/w B,D and E and i would like to help anyone struggling with these choices

(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.
Here keyword is all, because of people who do not wear seat belts , the insurance rates are going up for all.

(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.
Here it is talking about rate. Rate depends on the number of people on which calculation is made. We donot have information absolute numbers from this

(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.
It is only talking about the patients who donot wear seatbelts and not how it harm other people
Clearly answer is b

mathislife · Answer

Opponents: I don’t want to be told to wear a seatbelt. I should be able to take that risk as long as I don't harm other people. 
Conclusion: Up to individuals to choose whether to wear a seatbelt.

What would weaken the conclusion? We need to show that not wearing a seatbelt actually causes harm to others.

A) irrelevant 
B) Possible. Rates going up for everyone is a form of “harm” based on the actions of others. 
C) irrelevant
D) The rate of fatalities may be higher, but maybe it’s always the people without the seatbelt who are dying. In this case, there is no additional ‘harm’ to others 
E) This is expected, but does not say anything about the harm to others.

Best answer seems to be B.

Harsh2111s · Answer

GMATNinja  or any experts,

I am unable to connect the options to argument.Can someone explain each option through POE ?

I read all posts above but didn't find satisfactory answers.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

Let us try to analyze the stimulus.

Conclusion:  It should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.

Premises on which the conclusion is based (why):  In a free society people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks.

Since we are asked to  weaken  the conclusion, we need to look for an answer option that presents a scenario wherein  other people  are harmed as a result of some people not wearing the seat belt while driving/riding passenger, because this is the exception presented in the stimulus for when individual freedoms  may  be restrained. Let us look at each answer option for this message:

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.  Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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.  Correct. This presents a scenario where everyone is worse off - even those wearing seat belt are adversely affected by those who don't. In other words,  others  are harmed.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.  Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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.  Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

(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.  Does not present a scenario where others are harmed. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.

KarishmaB · Answer

A typical example of - focus on what the argument is discussing and keep other aspects aside, though they may be critical to a wholesome discussion. A CR argument discusses just one aspect and that is what you need to focus on. In a free society, people have the right to take risks as long as people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks. Conclusion: So it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt. This should be correct as long as person A not wearing a seat belt does not harm person B. It could harm person A and that is what the argument is saying - people have the right to take risks . But it should not harm anyone else - as long as it doesn't harm others What weakens the conclusion? (A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat. Irrelevant what happens today. The argument is saying what should happen. (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. Insurance rates for all are higher. A not wearing seat belt increases insurance rate of B too. This harms B. So conclusion is weakened. Not wearing seat belts harms others and hence people should wear seat belts. (C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings. Irrelevant (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. People not wearing seat belts are harming themselves. The argument says that is acceptable. (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. Again, people not wearing seat belts themselves are injured. The argument says that is acceptable. Answer (B) Discussion on Weaken Questions: https://youtu.be/EhZ8FKkfy0k

sshwetima · Answer

Experts please explain why A is not right ? Presenting my understanding:

Premise - People (opposing the law) argue that they have right to take risk if they don't harm others
Conclusion - Based on premise, they conclude that it's should be  each person's  decision whether or not to wear a seat belt

Goal - To weaken the conclusion which means that person cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat belt.

How to weaken the conclusion:
1. Any option which suggests that the person is not deciding about seat belt. 
2. One person's decision harming others.

Someone who sits in the front seat is forced to wear seat belt. Here person cannot decide on his own.

Thanks in advance!

ArnauG · Answer

The argument against mandatory seat belt laws is based on the premise that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others. Therefore, to weaken this argument, we need to show that not wearing a seat belt can harm others or that the individual's decision not to wear a seat belt can harm others.

Option B  provides a reason to believe that not wearing a seat belt can harm others. If automobile insurance rates are higher for all automobile owners because of the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts, then it is clear that not wearing a seat belt can harm others. This undermines the argument that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt, as that decision could have consequences for others.

Option A  is irrelevant, as it does not address the issue of whether not wearing a seat belt can harm others.

Option C  is also irrelevant, as it only compares a different mode of transportation and does not address the argument against mandatory seat belt laws.

Option D  provides evidence that mandatory seat belt laws are effective in reducing automobile fatalities, but it does not directly address the argument that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others.

Option E  provides evidence that wearing a seat belt can reduce the number of injuries sustained in automobile accidents, but it also does not directly address the argument that individuals have the right to take risks as long as they do not harm others.

Therefore, the answer is  (B) .

natasha760 · Answer

A) Irrelevant 
B) Say in locality A, People who wear a seat belt have to pay a high amount for insurance premium because the risk of getting into an accident is greater than other localities in which all people wear a belt. Here The rate is spiked by drivers who do not wear a belt, making insurance expensive for all parties. This is an economic harm projected by non seat belt wearers on others.
C) Airplanes =out of scope 
D) a) what if this is referring to the drivers alone and not others. OR the region in which fatalities are high is because in that region people drive more. Then the seat belt is not even a factor.

E) Limited to drivers = does not weaken

manrasingh · Answer

Hi experts, 
 ChiranjeevSingh   GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two  mikemcgarry   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

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?

In E) I can still believe that the argument talks about automobile passengers hurting themselves so we can rule out any external reason.

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards