GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 16 Dec 2018, 07:14

### 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 December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### Free GMAT Prep Hour

December 16, 2018

December 16, 2018

03:00 PM EST

04:00 PM EST

Strategies and techniques for approaching featured GMAT topics
• ### FREE Quant Workshop by e-GMAT!

December 16, 2018

December 16, 2018

07:00 AM PST

09:00 AM PST

Get personalized insights on how to achieve your Target Quant Score.

# Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 696
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 10:37
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

45% (01:45) correct 55% (01:50) wrong based on 159 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 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.

Source : LSAT PT38, S4, Q14
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1274
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 10:58
bigtreezl 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 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.

I was between D & E for a more than a minute. I ended up choosing E because D goes a bit too far in saying primarily and spewing exhaust is equated to total emissions of an automobile trip. Both of them are very attractive. I felt D is the trap. What is the OA?
VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1213
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2008, 21:42
bigtreezl 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 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.

Between D and E,initially felt D is good !!but if we give a closer look!!
we get that in D they are saying total emissions determined by total time !!in argument we are not bothered about amount od emissioins !
it just says when the autobiles spend more time on road they emit gases !!
E i felt bad since the use of ONLY :but when D loses ,E is fine !!
IMO E
_________________

cheers
Its Now Or Never

Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 980
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 01:05
bigtreezl 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 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.

I picked D initially but after reading the explanations of Priya and icandy I believe E is right.

I fell in the clever trap
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

VP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1417
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 01:28
1
Initially, I picked E, but I will go with D for the reason that E mentions "significant risk" and stimulus does not say that.
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 250
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:34
i will go for D

E exaggerates the stimulus
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 152
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:47
I too feel E is more appropriate. Whats the QA ?
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1274
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 07:50
Hmm We have quite a division here

(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.

I colored the problematic parts and ruled out D based on the extraneous information it brings in.

Stimulus says 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

I believe we can safely say that if drivers spend more time on road then they have risk of collision. Cars by themselves dont spend time on the road.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1274
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:13
bigtreezl wrote:
OA is D

Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 696
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:21
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:
OA is D

Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E.

This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation.
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1274
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 09:29
bigtreezl wrote:
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:
OA is D

Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E.

This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation.

Wow! If LSAT says so, I don't have any more Q's. other than Just sucking it up
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 855
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Oct 2008, 13:06
hahaha

Here's a partial explanation:
11-t42786

bigtreezl wrote:
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:
OA is D

This is from section IV of the 10/2002 official LSAT. Unfortunately I dont have the explanation.

Wow! If LSAT says so, I don't have any more Q's. other than Just sucking it up
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 168
Location: India
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 07:31
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.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Manager
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 142
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 10:44
SudiptoGmat 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 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.

i think its D. E also looks attractive but the phrase only if they spend a lot of time on the road is overstating the author
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1033
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Feb 2010, 20:20
IMO C
C : addresses both the issues.
Both D and E address individual issues.

Thank you .
Intern
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 27
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2010, 06:43
amit2k9 wrote:
IMO C
C : addresses both the issues.
Both D and E address individual issues.

Thank you .

The no. of cars is not the issue. Its the emission & the safety that are important. So D & E are the sole candidates. But the problem with E is the use of word 'only' which is not stated in the argument. Hence D is the best.
Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 168
Location: India
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Feb 2010, 13:23
honeyrai wrote:
amit2k9 wrote:
IMO C
C : addresses both the issues.
Both D and E address individual issues.

Thank you .

The no. of cars is not the issue. Its the emission & the safety that are important. So D & E are the sole candidates. But the problem with E is the use of word 'only' which is not stated in the argument. Hence D is the best.

Bravo.....you are the man.....You got it right. I was puzzled at D and E. D is the OA.
_________________

Cheers,
SD

Intern
Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Posts: 25
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2010, 13:09
C is in fact what the author is talking about so it supports the conclusion that reducing speed limits will put more vehicle on the road leading to more emission and improved chances of collisions.

Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 454
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 May 2011, 05:27
D is the answer to this question and i dont really think there is anything in C or E to think abou
Manager
Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Posts: 179
Schools: ABCD
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Aug 2012, 14:06
question#1 - I have no issues with OA D. I actually chose that while answering this question. However, I am curious about A). Setting aside the main issue about environment and safety, I feel that A) hinges on a minor gap in the argument : Premise talks about "more slowly a car is driven .... " but the conclusion is about "reducing speed limit ". I feel that A) is trying to attack this gap. Essentially, just because the speed limits are reduced, the drivers won't have an incentive to drive slowly. If there are some drivers who don't follow the speed limits, then wouldn't this weaken the connection between driving slowly and speed limits --- drivers don't obey speed limits at all.

Also, I have also read in one of the CR notes floating in the forum that negation of sufficient conditions are generally out of scope.

question #2 -
to give an example :

Baseball players, who wear white shirt, always score a home run in their league matches.
Hence, Baseball players who wear white shirt help in winning the game.

If one of the answer choice says .."Baseball players who don't wear white shirt...." - it will be out of scope because we are only concerned about the sufficient condition - who wear white shirt.. However, I am trying to think - will there be any argument wherein the negation of sufficient condition could be in scope for an assumption/weaken or a strengthen problem? In other words, will there be an argument for which a condition like men who don't wear white shirts ....would be in scope. I am trying to think about such argument . Not sure whether OG has something similar.

Thanks
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the &nbs [#permalink] 15 Aug 2012, 14:06

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by