It is currently 20 Nov 2017, 23:47

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

SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o

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

Hide Tags

VP
VP
User avatar
V
Status: Preparing for the GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 1281

Kudos [?]: 1099 [0], given: 543

Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.4
Premium Member CAT Tests
SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2017, 10:25
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  95% (hard)

Question Stats:

19% (01:38) correct 81% (01:58) wrong based on 36 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed
for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counter-examples to the principle of sanctity of life which are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide fifteen mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

SPEAKER 2: The analogy my opponent draws between abortion and traffic fatalities is weak. No one would propose such a speed limit. Imagine people trying to get to and from work under such a law, or imagine them trying to visit a friend or relatives outside their own neighborhoods, or taking in a sports event or a movie. Obviously such a law would be a disaster.

Which of the following represents the most logical continuation of the reasoning contained in Speaker 1’s argument?

(A) Therefore, we should not have any laws on the books to protect human life.
(B) We can only conclude that Speaker 2 is also in favor of strengthening enforcement of existing traffic regulations as a means to reducing the number of traffic fatalities each year.
(C) So the strongest attack on Speaker 2’s position is that he contradicts himself when he agrees that we should fight a just war even at the risk of considerable loss of human life.
(D) Even the laws against contraceptio are good examples of this tendency.
(E) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.

Master GMAT
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Official PS Practice Questions
Press +1 Kudos if this post is helpful

Kudos [?]: 1099 [0], given: 543

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 3

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

Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Nov 2017, 14:38
Could someone please explain why the OA is E and not B?

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

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 03 Aug 2017
Posts: 15

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 107

CAT Tests
Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Nov 2017, 14:49
Anvi10 wrote:
Could someone please explain why the OA is E and not B?


SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed
for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counter-examples to the principle of sanctity of life which are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide fifteen mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

SPEAKER 2: The analogy my opponent draws between abortion and traffic fatalities is weak. No one would propose such a speed limit. Imagine people trying to get to and from work under such a law, or imagine them trying to visit a friend or relatives outside their own neighborhoods, or taking in a sports event or a movie. Obviously such a law would be a disaster.

Which of the following represents the most logical continuation of the reasoning contained in Speaker 1’s argument?

(A) Therefore, we should not have any laws on the books to protect human life.
(B) We can only conclude that Speaker 2 is also in favor of strengthening enforcement of existing traffic regulations as a means to reducing the number of traffic fatalities each year.
(C) So the strongest attack on Speaker 2’s position is that he contradicts himself when he agrees that we should fight a just war even at the risk of considerable loss of human life.
(D) Even the laws against contraceptio are good examples of this tendency.
(E) The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.



This is a hard question to understand conceptually. In my point of view the inclusion of speaker 2 was fluff, or rather, a distraction.

The question asks, what is the most logical continuation of speaker 1's argument. I have never seen a CR problem like this, but this does seem similar to certain types of RC problems in which the question asks you to logically predict what the next (unwritten) paragraph would be about. In this regard, the question is essentially asking, what would the last (unwritten) sentence of speaker 1's argument be?

Notice here, the question does not allude to speaker 2 at all, and in fact, whatever speaker 2 says has no relevance.

So the task here is to fully comprehend speaker 1's argument and try to extend it.

The argument goes as follows:
1) Claim that people's opposition to abortion on the basis on "sanctity of human life" is bogus.
2) Example of reason the logic is hypocritical
3) Another example why this logic is hypocritical
4) Part of conclusion (people have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality)
5) Continuation sentence. (end of conclusion)

So sentence 5 needs to logically pair with the last sentence of the argument (sentence 4 above).

That leaves us with the answer choices:

You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality. We can only conclude that Speaker 2 is also in favor of strengthening enforcement of existing traffic regulations as a means to reducing the number of traffic fatalities each year.

This answer makes no sense. The argument ends saying speaker 2 would want slow driving cars which in fact misses the point all together. The last sentence needs to discuss either abortion or the trade off of human life for quality. In addition this chronologically does not work, speaker 2 hasn't presented his or her point yet. It would be presumptuous as well as out of place to be part of the argument.

Conversly,

You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality. The abortion question just makes explicit that which for so long has remained hidden from view.

This addition to the argument relates to the preceding sentence and makes sense in the context of the entire argument.

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 107

Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o   [#permalink] 19 Nov 2017, 14:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o

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


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

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

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®.