It is currently 20 Oct 2017, 09:39

### 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

# Our government guarantees us the right to worship in any way

Author Message
VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Our government guarantees us the right to worship in any way [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 10:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

Our government guarantees us the right to worship in any way we want & yet this right is denied daily. School teachers are forbidden to lead all the students in collective prayer even if the great majority of students in the class are religious in one way or the other. The government is contradicting its promise of freedom & worship for all.

The author of the above argument is logically committed to the view that

a) Atheism cannot be considered a religion & so is not protected under any guaranteed of worship
b) Public worship does not amount to a repudiation of the doctrine of the separation of the church and state
c) If we allow religious freedom to wane, our basic freedoms will soon be in jeopardy
d) Compelling someone to be present during the prayer does not violate that personâ€™s right of freedom of worship
e) Public announcements of atheism are inconsistent with the principles upon which our government was founded.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 11:14
A) out of scope
B) makes sense but goes too far
C) nothing is said about other rights
D) seems OK
E) clearly out of scope

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 12:46
I'll go with D as well.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1115

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

Location: India

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 20:02
Straight D.
The author argues that 'to lead all the students in collective prayer ' is a way to ensure 'promise of freedom & worship for all'.
Also, not all students are religious(even if the great majority of students in the class are religious).
Correlating the two arguments we can interpret that 'Compelling someone to be present during the prayer does not violate that personâ€™s right of freedom of worship'. Thus D follows.

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 1

Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 351

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 20:21
Has to be D.

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 1

SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1728

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 22:35
Will go with D.

The author argues that religious freedom has been garuanted by the goverment. Yet he argues that since school teachers don't take children to participate in collective prayer, it is violating the law as many students wish to pray.

Thus he assumes or thinks that "Compelling someone to be present during the prayer does not violate that personâ€™s right of freedom of worship"

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 5034

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 0

Location: Singapore

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 22:41
D. By making it nescessary for students in the class to be in a collective prayer, the author assumes this is not an infringement on the person's right of freedom of worshpi.

Kudos [?]: 438 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 788

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Location: BULGARIA

### Show Tags

25 May 2006, 23:30
I have a different opinion.
If the author assumes that compelling people does not violate their right of worship, then the conclusion that ;"The government is contradicting its promise of freedom & worship for ALL" seems wrong cause the goverment would violate the rights of the majority only, not all.
IMO it is A) Since nonbelievers are not counted then they are excluded from the scope of the author and he makes a conlusion about the majority as a whole

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 137

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2006, 04:44
nope ..it should be "D" only ..here author is mainly concerned with the freedom of teacher only .."A" goes totally out of scope to speak about atheism ...Author is favouring teacher to lead the children for prayers ..so basically he's saying that compelling the children to be present for prayer is on the lines of freedom granted to anybody in the country.. ..
_________________

--I never think of future, it comes soon enough!!

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 10 May 2006
Posts: 125

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2006, 13:28
A

My reasoning is that the author acknowledges that there are a few atheheists - "even if the great majority of students in the class are religious", i.e. there have to be a few students who are not religious or are atheists.

But the author still goes on to propose that all the students be lead for "collective praying". This means that the author doesn't consider atheism a "religion" and thus students, who are atheists are not protected under "right of freedom of religion and worship".

What do u guys think of this reasoning?

let us know what the OA is.

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 444

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

26 May 2006, 14:13
alfa_beta01 wrote:
A

My reasoning is that the author acknowledges that there are a few atheheists - "even if the great majority of students in the class are religious", i.e. there have to be a few students who are not religious or are atheists.

But the author still goes on to propose that all the students be lead for "collective praying". This means that the author doesn't consider atheism a "religion" and thus students, who are atheists are not protected under "right of freedom of religion and worship".

What do u guys think of this reasoning?

let us know what the OA is.

Not all non-christians are atheists. Moreover, even not all non-believers are atheists, some are agnostics for example.

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 937

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

27 May 2006, 08:58
I'll go for D because the author is assuming that making someone attend prayer does not violate that personâ€™s right of freedom of worship - great majority of students in the class are religious in one way or the other...so a part of the students may not be religious

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 1338

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 May 2006, 11:33
thanx everybody.

OA is D.

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: Govt   [#permalink] 27 May 2006, 11:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by