It is currently 26 Jun 2017, 07:09

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2008, 11:37
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

48% (01:59) correct 52% (00:58) wrong based on 65 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
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1408
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2008, 11:58
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
VP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1381
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Oct 2008, 22:42
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

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 79
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 01:00
E
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1034
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 02:05
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 :cry:
_________________

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

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 May 2008
Posts: 85
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 02:12
My ans is E.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1547
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 02:28
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
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 31 Jul 2008
Posts: 296
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 08:34
i will go for D

E exaggerates the stimulus
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 159
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 08:47
I too feel E is more appropriate. Whats the QA ?
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1408
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 08:50
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.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 09:58
OA is D
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1408
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 10:13
bigtreezl wrote:
OA is D


Can you please post the explanation the Q offers? I seriously find D more distracting than E.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 806
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 10:21
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
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1408
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 10:29
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
User avatar
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 970
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Oct 2008, 14:06
hahaha :eat

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
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 264
Location: India
Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2010, 08:31
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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
Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Aug 2009
Posts: 149
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2010, 11:44
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
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1326
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Feb 2010, 21:20
IMO C
C : addresses both the issues.
Both D and E address individual issues.

Thank you .
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 01 Feb 2010
Posts: 33
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Feb 2010, 07:43
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.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 264
Location: India
Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Feb 2010, 14:23
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

Re: Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the   [#permalink] 17 Feb 2010, 14:23

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 35 posts ] 

    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Neither a sharp intellect nor a willingness to work hard, by itself, g SajjadAhmad 2 09 Mar 2017, 15:28
13 On most side streets in the United States, the speed limit anceer 6 26 Jun 2016, 12:21
19 Experts publish their posts in the topic A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid censure by Postal 26 24 Apr 2017, 14:06
4 Most people in the United States view neither big nor small boros2203 7 19 May 2016, 01:14
43 Experts publish their posts in the topic Neither a rising standard of living nor balanced trade, by goalsnr 21 23 Apr 2017, 11:35
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.