Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 25 May 2017, 05:44

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

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 240
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 13:04
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

HideShow timer Statistics

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argumentâ€™s reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.
Director
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 707
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 14:42
A for me.
Manager
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 76
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 6 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 17:21
It's a tough one.

I go with D.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2007
Posts: 253
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 17:25
i think D..

(A) strengthens the argument if anything...
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 197
Location: California
Followers: 3

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

Re: CR - Speed Limits [#permalink]

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 17:29
rdg wrote:
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argumentâ€™s reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

A: Some motorist may not follow limits but are these a significant number?
B: Not related
C: This may actualy help the argument
E: There may be a 'significant' risk of collision in other conditions also
VP
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 1022
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

02 Mar 2007, 17:31
I was actually debating between B and D, but I think D is correct beacause it doesn't go beyond the scope of the argument.
Manager
Joined: 09 Jan 2007
Posts: 240
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

03 Mar 2007, 18:49
OA is (D) but I do not understand what is the difference between (D) and (E)? Because both statements are concerned about one of the issues, either spewing exhaust or risk of colliding?
Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
Posts: 297
Followers: 1

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

Show Tags

06 Mar 2007, 08:27
This question seems flawed to me.

D and E seem most logical. Both refer to the original argument. That speed has no relationship to accidents, and that time is the only vairiable in regards to the atmosphere.

D is more precise, but one could probably argue for E.
Manager
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 165
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 0

Show Tags

06 Mar 2007, 09:21
(D)

D and E both seem to be probable answers - however E is ruled out because of the use of "only" ---->
" (E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road."

The argument mentions that vehicles run risk of collisions if the speed limit is reduced - it is possibly one of the reasons, but not the ONLY reason
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1122
Location: India
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 1

Show Tags

06 Mar 2007, 20:23
GMAThopeful wrote:
(D)

D and E both seem to be probable answers - however E is ruled out because of the use of "only" ---->
" (E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road."

The argument mentions that vehicles run risk of collisions if the speed limit is reduced - it is possibly one of the reasons, but not the ONLY reason

D over E for the exact same reason.
E presents a very strong argument by using only.
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

Re: Speed   [#permalink] 06 Mar 2007, 20:23
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Neither rising industrial output nor a high national minimum 9 17 Aug 2010, 14:03
1 Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 2 01 Jul 2009, 06:47
Neither a rising standard of living nor balanced trade, by 10 13 Jun 2008, 02:21
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 4 18 Oct 2007, 20:21
Neither a rising standard of living nor balanced trade, by 2 05 Jun 2007, 13:50
Display posts from previous: Sort by