|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
20 Aug 2020, 00:36
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
15%
(low)
Question Stats:
85% (02:03) correct
15%
(02:08)
wrong
based on 274
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Politician: The law should not require people to wear seat belts in cars. People are allowed to ride motorcycles without seat belts, and riding a motorcycle even while wearing a seat belt would be more dangerous than riding in a car without wearing one.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the politician’s argument?
(A) Marielle and Pat should allow their children to have snacks between meals. They currently allow their children to have a large dessert after dinner, and allowing them to have snacks between meals instead would improve their nutrition.
(B) Any corporation should allow its employees to take time off when they are under too much stress to concentrate on their work. Some corporations allow any employee with a bad cold to take time off, and even a healthy employee under stress may be less productive than an unstressed employee with a bad cold.
(C) Amusement parks should allow people to stand while riding roller coasters. It is legal for people to stand at the edges of high cliffs, and even sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more likely to result in a fatal fall than standing while riding a roller coaster.
(D) It should be illegal for anyone to smoke in a public place, for it certainly should be illegal to pollute public drinking water, and smoking even in the privacy of one’s home can be more harmful to the health of others than polluting their water would be.
(E) Vanessa should be allowed to let her dog run around in the park without a leash. She already lets the dog roam around her yard without a leash, and the park differs from her yard only in size.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the politician’s argument?
(A) Marielle and Pat should allow their children to have snacks between meals. They currently allow their children to have a large dessert after dinner, and allowing them to have snacks between meals instead would improve their nutrition.
(B) Any corporation should allow its employees to take time off when they are under too much stress to concentrate on their work. Some corporations allow any employee with a bad cold to take time off, and even a healthy employee under stress may be less productive than an unstressed employee with a bad cold.
(C) Amusement parks should allow people to stand while riding roller coasters. It is legal for people to stand at the edges of high cliffs, and even sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more likely to result in a fatal fall than standing while riding a roller coaster.
(D) It should be illegal for anyone to smoke in a public place, for it certainly should be illegal to pollute public drinking water, and smoking even in the privacy of one’s home can be more harmful to the health of others than polluting their water would be.
(E) Vanessa should be allowed to let her dog run around in the park without a leash. She already lets the dog roam around her yard without a leash, and the park differs from her yard only in size.
20 Aug 2020, 01:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
As per the question stem, politician's conclusion is "law should not require people to wear seat belts in cars" and he has based his conclusion on the analogy of that the act of wearing a seat-belt while riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than the act of wearing not wearing it, but his argument is flawed because, while riding a motorcycle, its the act of wearing a helmet that keeps a rider safe. Keep the same thought in mind, only option C satisfies this analogy, as C says "It is legal for people to stand at the edges of high cliffs, and even sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more likely to result in a fatal", so "Amusement parks should allow people to stand while riding roller coasters"
Again an flawed analogy.
Option C is correct.
Again an flawed analogy.
Option C is correct.
15 Feb 2026, 22:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
Correct answer: (C)
Why the politician’s reasoning is flawed
The politician argues:
A more dangerous situation is allowed (motorcycles without seat belts).
Therefore, a less dangerous situation should also be allowed (cars without seat belts).
So the flawed pattern is:
“Because the law permits a riskier activity, it should not prohibit a safer but similar activity.”
This ignores that different activities can be regulated differently for many reasons (risk type, context, practicality, public policy, etc.).
Check each option
(A) Talks about nutrition improvement. No comparison of allowed riskier vs. banned safer activity → ❌ not similar.
(B) Compares stress vs. illness for time off. It argues consistency in policy, but not “riskier allowed → safer should be allowed.” → ❌
(C)
People are legally allowed to stand at high cliffs (very dangerous).
Therefore, they should be allowed to stand on roller coasters (less dangerous comparison).
This matches the exact flawed structure:
Allowed more dangerous activity ⇒ should allow less dangerous one.
✅ Parallel reasoning
(D) Argues for more restriction based on harm comparison. Opposite direction → ❌
(E) Compares yard vs. park but doesn’t rely on danger comparison → ❌
Why the politician’s reasoning is flawed
The politician argues:
A more dangerous situation is allowed (motorcycles without seat belts).
Therefore, a less dangerous situation should also be allowed (cars without seat belts).
So the flawed pattern is:
“Because the law permits a riskier activity, it should not prohibit a safer but similar activity.”
This ignores that different activities can be regulated differently for many reasons (risk type, context, practicality, public policy, etc.).
Check each option
(A) Talks about nutrition improvement. No comparison of allowed riskier vs. banned safer activity → ❌ not similar.
(B) Compares stress vs. illness for time off. It argues consistency in policy, but not “riskier allowed → safer should be allowed.” → ❌
(C)
People are legally allowed to stand at high cliffs (very dangerous).
Therefore, they should be allowed to stand on roller coasters (less dangerous comparison).
This matches the exact flawed structure:
Allowed more dangerous activity ⇒ should allow less dangerous one.
✅ Parallel reasoning
(D) Argues for more restriction based on harm comparison. Opposite direction → ❌
(E) Compares yard vs. park but doesn’t rely on danger comparison → ❌
