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

 It is currently 23 Oct 2018, 11:26

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Status: Preparing GMAT
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 1738
Location: Pakistan
GPA: 3.39
SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2017, 10:25
2
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

29% (02:50) correct 71% (02:42) wrong based on 139 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

_________________

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

Intern
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 3
Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Nov 2017, 14:38
Could someone please explain why the OA is E and not B?
Intern
Joined: 03 Aug 2017
Posts: 21
Location: United States (NY)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V39
GPA: 3.76
Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Posts: 175
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Project Management (Education)
Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 Feb 2018, 00:21
Hi, Why isn't C the answer?
I understood the question as a dialogue between two speakers. So, once speaker 2 puts his point forward (which here being weak interpretation of speaker 1 thoughts) wouldn't speaker 1 use it to strengthen his points further?
Re: SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation o &nbs [#permalink] 25 Feb 2018, 00:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by