It is currently 23 Sep 2017, 15:08

### 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
Director
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 566

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 18:17
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 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 arguments 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.

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

CEO
Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 2554

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2007, 18:41
IrinaOK 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 arguments 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.

Btwn D and E, I say D.

A: irrelevant
B: we are talking about enviro and safety. Irrelevant.
C: This actually strengthens the argument. Doesn't expose a potential flaw.

D and E. I like D better than E b/c E makes sense that spending more time on the road equates to increased chance of getting into an accident.

However, just b/c a car goes slow doesn't mean its emitting more pollutants, which in fact is why I chose this answer b/c when are car goes faster it uses more gas comparable to a slower rate and pollutes more.

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 03 Apr 2006
Posts: 20

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

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2007, 02:20
IrinaOK 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 arguments 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- off the scope
b- what other benefits can be there?
c-this will support the argument
d-here we go, this must be an answer
e-very tempting, but words only if they spend a lot of time - raises flag, this is irrelevant as even with high speed trip may take a lot of time.

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

Director
Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 566

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2007, 04:19
Utkur, "only if" is a good point.

"only if" signals extreme, and that extreme is not mentioned in the passage, in fact passage does not limit the possibility that there are other reasons for car accidents and thus the argument is not flawed in that way.

AO is D,

Thank you, guys!

Kudos [?]: 70 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 360

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Oct 2007, 20:21
Its E

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

Re: CR_shy   [#permalink] 18 Oct 2007, 20:21
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Since the 55-mile-per-hour speed limit was mandated on our 5 30 Jan 2008, 21:48
1 Neither rising industrial output nor a high national minimum 9 17 Aug 2010, 14:03
Neither a rising standard of living nor balanced trade, by 10 13 Jun 2008, 02:21
1 Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 2 01 Jul 2009, 06:47
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the 0 15 Aug 2012, 23:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by