It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 17:12

### 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 308

Kudos [?]: 452 [0], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2009, 22:06
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

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

### HideShow timer Statistics

3. 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 argument’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.

The OA is
[Reveal] Spoiler:
d

Last edited by vaivish1723 on 30 Jun 2009, 23:44, edited 1 time in total.

Kudos [?]: 452 [0], given: 1

Director
Joined: 03 Jun 2009
Posts: 782

Kudos [?]: 902 [1], given: 56

Location: New Delhi
WE 1: 5.5 yrs in IT

### Show Tags

30 Jun 2009, 22:23
1
KUDOS
I would divide this argument into two separate arguments.
I. Reduced speed -> more time on road -> increased pollution.
II. Reduced speed -> more time on road -> increased chances of collision.

(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits. -out of scope
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits. -out of scope
(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. -Strengthens the IInd part above. Whereas we have been asked to find the flaw in argument
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes -Correct choice. Attacks part I
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road. -Incorrect. The use of "only" makes this an extreme option. The author never said that spending more time on road is only reason for increase in collision.
_________________

Kudos [?]: 902 [1], given: 56

Director
Joined: 27 Jun 2008
Posts: 540

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

WE 1: Investment Banking - 6yrs

### Show Tags

01 Jul 2009, 06:47
Weakens the conclusion?
C : Reduced speed > more time on road > increased pollution ; Reduced speed > more time on road > increased chances of collision.

By PoE :
A - Out of Scope
B - Out of Scope
E - extreme word "only"
C - strengthens

D

Kudos [?]: 69 [0], given: 92

Re: Reducing speed   [#permalink] 01 Jul 2009, 06:47
Display posts from previous: Sort by