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

 It is currently 20 Nov 2018, 12:43

### 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 November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
• ### All GMAT Club Tests are Free and open on November 22nd in celebration of Thanksgiving Day!

November 22, 2018

November 22, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Mark your calendars - All GMAT Club Tests are free and open November 22nd to celebrate Thanksgiving Day! Access will be available from 0:01 AM to 11:59 PM, Pacific Time (USA)
• ### Free lesson on number properties

November 23, 2018

November 23, 2018

10:00 PM PST

11:00 PM PST

Practice the one most important Quant section - Integer properties, and rapidly improve your skills.

# The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Status: Attending Duke in May!
Joined: 07 Jan 2013
Posts: 25
Location: United States (NC)
GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2013, 20:09
1
walker wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

My question is how it is close to real GMAT

+1 C

This seems like a real good GMAT question to answer your question. It has a great trap answer (D) and the wording feels right to me.

Director
Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Posts: 766
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.6
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2013, 13:07
mun23 wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?
(A)The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
(B)The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
(C)Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
(D)The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
(E)Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Need explanation..........

HERE IS OE

The conclusion of this argument is that the national identification system (“using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle”) is un-American. The basis for this claim is that such a system would allow the government to restrict the liberty of its people. The necessary assumption is one that connects restrictions on liberties to the concept of “un-American” policies.

(A) The author never mentions future presidential elections, or the role of the president in such a national identification system. Therefore, the conclusion that the national identification system is un-American does not depend on this assumption.

(B) Whether the government will soon, or will ever, start curtailing the activities of dissidents is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if the government does not abuse the power the national identification system provides, the system could still be considered un-American.

(C) CORRECT. This choice connects the concept of "un-American" policies to restrictions on liberties, essentially defining blanket restrictions on citizens as un-American.

(D) Whether Americans are willing to give up their right to travel freely is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if Americans were willing to give up their right to move about without identification, the system could still be considered un-American.

(E) While the author may be inclined to agree that Americans should resist the government regulation of their lives that the national identification system represents, this argument does not depend on such an assumption. In fact, the author makes a distinction between the national identification system and “licenses for purposes…directly related to operating a motor vehicle,” so it is possible that the author considers some government regulation reasonable.

HOPE IT HELPS
_________________

When you want to succeed as bad as you want to breathe ...then you will be successfull....

GIVE VALUE TO OFFICIAL QUESTIONS...

learn AWA writing techniques while watching video : http://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat-analytical-writing-assessment

Joined: 06 May 2013
Posts: 84
Location: Malawi
Concentration: Marketing, Technology
Schools: Tuck '20 (S)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Nov 2013, 01:44
The following is a road map of the argument:

Department of Homeland security wants to make driving licenses a mark of national identity --> Such an imposition is un-american because of the need to carry 'papers' or extra baggage to prove one's identity --> such requirements restrict the movements of many citizens --> In time, other limits on freedom will become acceptable, rather freedom would be curtailed.

The options:
A) Irrelevant. The argument has nothing to do with or to say about the next presidential elections or the eastern European countries.
B) Irrelevant. The arguments says nothing about the dissidents. It talks about how making driving licence a mark of National Identity is un-american, how it will affect the people by curtailing their freedom.
C) Correct. This states that such impositions are un-american which is necessary for the argument's conclusion to stand.
D) Irrelevant. The argument says nothing about the willingness of people to accept or defy these terms. In fact the argument as nothing in relation to the common public opinion. It only speaks of the author's views.
E) Irrelevant. This is not an assumption. This is more like a message the author would have wanted to convey. But however, we have no information on this even. 'All' is too extreme for an answer choice.
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 145
Concentration: Technology, Other
Schools: Berkeley Haas
GMAT Date: 01-14-2015
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2014, 10:36
I am not sure how close this question is to the real GMAT but it is pretty confusing to me ...Hope my thinking is correct in this one

P: Govt wants to use driving licences for identification purposes other than driving
P:This will restrict freedom of movement of people in a severe manner

C:Hence making such a move will be Un-American .

What does the author assume in making the conclusion ?
Anything that is unamerican is something that causes restriction on people .

Answer is C Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law ie
Restrictions are not american .

Manager
Joined: 25 Mar 2014
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GMAT Date: 05-10-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: Assumption Revision: The Department of Homeland Security  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Feb 2015, 21:52
OA should be C.
Pre-thinking:
Here author concludes that X is un-american (UA), and then goes on to describe (providing premises) why X is UA.
So, the logical gap in the argument is "enforcing limits on acceptable freedom is UA", and that is the assumption made.
option C implies straight to the pre-thinking.
_________________

Please give Kudos to the post if you liked.

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 297
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2015, 08:21
anindyat wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

Got it wrong because I did not identify the conclusion-Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.
So C is right because if C is right then it is not un-American to have blanket restrictions...
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Current Student
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4426
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: Assumption Revision: The Department of Homeland Security  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2015, 18:46
2
1
The conclusion of this argument is that the national identification system (“using
licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle”) is un-
American. The basis for this claim is that such a system would allow the
government to restrict the liberty of its people. The necessary assumption is one
that connects restrictions on liberties to the concept of “un-American” policies.

(A) The author never mentions future presidential elections, or the role of the
president in such a national identification system. Therefore, the conclusion that
the national identification system is un-American does not depend on this
assumption.

(B) Whether the government will soon, or will ever, start curtailing the activities of
dissidents is irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is
un-American simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if the
government does not abuse the power the national identification system
provides, the system could still be considered un-American.

(C) CORRECT. This choice connects the concept of "un-American" policies to
restrictions on liberties, essentially defining blanket restrictions on citizens as un-
American.

(D) Whether Americans are willing to give up their right to travel freely is
irrelevant to this argument: that the national identification system is un-American
simply because it restricts the liberties of U.S. citizens. Even if Americans were
willing to give up their right to move about without identification, the system could
still be considered un-American.

(E) While the author may be inclined to agree that Americans should resist the
government regulation of their lives that the national identification system
represents, this argument does not depend on such an assumption. In fact, the
author makes a distinction between the national identification system and
“licenses for purposes…directly related to operating a motor vehicle,” so it is
possible that the author considers some government regulation reasonable.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 198
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2015, 23:40
IanStewart wrote:
The correct answer here is 'none of the above'; the author isn't specifically assuming any of the answer choices. Sure, C comes closest to being right, but the author is only specifically assuming that it is 'un-American' to require citizens to carry "papers", and not that it is un-American for the government to impose any type of 'blanket restriction' on citizens. Where is this question from? It doesn't make any sense.

I'd add that D is certainly not right; the argument is not based on public opinion in any way, but rather on what the author considers to be 'un-American'.

Hi Ian,

What is the conclusion in this argument.

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

According to me Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

official explanation says Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American

because if i read argument like Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American therefore Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

Thanks
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Posts: 90
GPA: 3.9
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: CR Revision: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2016, 11:34
1
souvik101990 wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. The author assumes which of the following?

A. The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.

B. The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”

C. Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

D. The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.

E. Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

Lets understand the premise first and identify the conclusion .

Premise: Using licenses for other purposes apart from driving is un-American.

Conclusion:- Such requirement will restrict movement as well as make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Now the choice that we need to find is the option that strengthens the conclusion or links the premise with the conclusion.

In option D: Even if American give up their right to travel how does it matter? So negating the argument does not shatter the conclusion. If we observe carefully right to travel is not discussed in the passage.

However, option C- It mentions blanket restrictions are contrary to American traditions. Because restrictions are uncommon the government can implement new restrictions.
Negating this option directly shatters the conclusion. if restrictions are not contrary then new restrictions might already be implemented.
Again observe carefully, this option talks something that is given in the premise.
By using POE you can filter out the correct choice. try it.

Kudos if this helped !!
Intern
Joined: 10 Feb 2016
Posts: 8
WE: Sales (Consulting)
Re: CR Revision: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Feb 2016, 15:46
However, option C- It mentions blanket restrictions are contrary to American traditions. Because restrictions are uncommon the government can implement new restrictions.
Negating this option directly shatters the conclusion. if restrictions are not contrary then new restrictions might already be implemented.
Again observe carefully, this option talks something that is given in the premise.
By using POE you can filter out the correct choice. try it.

NEGGATION IS THE BEST WAY TO DO ASSUMPTION QUESTIONS
Manager
Joined: 14 May 2014
Posts: 61
Location: India
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.44
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2016, 23:03
anindyat wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

So guys we agree that its between C and D.
Premise + conclusion: DL + carrying papers will restrict movement
So we assume it as true that MOVEMENT IS RESRICTED

D says the opposite: Americans are not willing to restrict----so its the opposite of what we should assume
C would be the answer by POE, though not the best
Director
Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 641
Location: United States
Schools: HBS '19
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 4
WE: Education (Education)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2017, 19:41
2
Conclusion :- “Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American”.
The rule for assumption is that if the assumption is reversed (also called "flip it"), the conclusion doesn't hold.

The argument basically says that since Americans don't use driving licenses for any purposes other than identification for driving, the usage of such licenses for other identification is "un-american". Ask yourself that what would the author have to assume for this to hold good? From the answer choices, flip all the choices and see whether this argument can be nullified. Lets see-

A says The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. The flipped version would say "The next presidential election will NOT be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries". Since this has no bearing on the argument, we can easily eliminate this one.

The flipped version of B says "The government will NOT soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers "dissidents."" Does this somehow affect the identification is 'un-American' argument? No. So eliminate this one too.

Flipped C : "Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are NOT contrary to the traditions of American culture and law." CORRECT. If Blanket restrictions on law abiding individuals were NOT contrary to the traditions of the American culture and law, the author couldn't have concluded that the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "un-american" and so the argument would NOT hold. So this is the answer!!

Flipped D: The majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. (In order to flip sentences that have a Not, remove the NOT). Even if the majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel without identification, it has no bearing whether the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "Un-American". So this CANNOT be the answer!

Flipped E: Americans should NOT resist all government regulation of their lives. No bearing, so eliminate this too

Hence C.
_________________

Thanks & Regards,
Anaira Mitch

Manager
Joined: 14 Sep 2015
Posts: 65
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q45 V40
GPA: 3.41
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Apr 2017, 13:25
anindyat wrote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.

IMO the OA:C is correct.

Okay, lets break this down.

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American.

Argument the author uses to support that conclusion is : the use of licence as anything other than a permit to drive is un-American because it would be equivalent to carrying papers and would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.

Now, we need to find out which statement is the assumption that the author is making in order to argue that the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. -- This one doesn't talk anything about why the use of licence for anything other than driving is un-American. Eliminate.
(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.” -- This is something that could happen if licence is used as national identification. But this still doesn't talk about by its un-American.
(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law. -- This one states that its contrary to american culture and law to impose restrictions on law-abiding individuals. If restrictions on law-abiding individuals is against the American culture and law, and if the govt can impose restrictions by using the licence as ID, then this clearly explains why the use of licence as ID is un-American.
(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. -- This one also doesn't talk about why is the use of licence as ID un-American.
(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives. -- This is clearly wrong as this is not an assumption at all. This statement implores Americans to resist govt regulation. This does not support the author's argument.
Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2015
Posts: 80
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.7
WE: Information Technology (Internet and New Media)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2017, 03:35
can anyone please explain Why is not the OA - D ? ? ( POE for D )
Intern
Joined: 12 Nov 2017
Posts: 2
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Apr 2018, 06:22
My Concerns:

1-What is the conclusion in the Argument?
Verbal Forum Moderator
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2128
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2018, 19:10
abhi02012 wrote:
My Concerns:
1-What is the conclusion in the Argument?

Hi abhi02012,

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- this is background / context for the argument

Quote:
Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American
This is definitely a value judgment - it's giving an opinion - and is therefore a claim.
Quote:
because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
-- reason for the claim

Quote:
Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
--here we have the evidence: if carrying papers means that the government can restrict the movement and activities of its citizens, then it's un-American.

Quote:
In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.
--this looks like it could be the conclusion, but it's not.It actually just goes along with with the previous statement that carrying papers is bad news.

the statement 'Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American' doesn't support any other claims in the argument, making it the main conclusion.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ity#p14965

Sure, I can hear you say that using licences for ID purposes may lead to other restrictions of freedom, i.e. 'Use licences for ID, therefore less freedom.' But this isn't an argument, it's a causal link. Arguments are about claims and evidence, not about one phenomenon causing another. Take this example:

'Tom's shoes are wet, so I think it must be raining outside.' Here my conclusion is 'I think it must be raining outside', supported by the evidence that 'Tom's shoes are wet'. However, this is different from the causal link: 'It's raining, therefore Tom's shoes are wet.' Be careful not to mix up causes with evidence.

mcelroytutoring , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , VeritasPrepKarishma, other experts-- please enlighten the meaning of highlighted part.
_________________

When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful

Intern
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 2
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Aug 2018, 16:46
Though B might look out of context, if negation is applied the conclusion does not stand
Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 92
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Sep 2018, 23:14
mcelroytutoring , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , VeritasPrepKarishma

Please throw some light on highlighted text. Also the crux of the problem is all about conclusion identification, still believe "In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable" is the main conclusion. Please enlighten with your thoughts

Skywalker18 wrote:
abhi02012 wrote:
My Concerns:
1-What is the conclusion in the Argument?

Hi abhi02012,

Quote:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- this is background / context for the argument

Quote:
Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American
This is definitely a value judgment - it's giving an opinion - and is therefore a claim.
Quote:
because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
-- reason for the claim

Quote:
Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
--here we have the evidence: if carrying papers means that the government can restrict the movement and activities of its citizens, then it's un-American.

Quote:
In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.
--this looks like it could be the conclusion, but it's not.It actually just goes along with with the previous statement that carrying papers is bad news.

the statement 'Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American' doesn't support any other claims in the argument, making it the main conclusion.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/foru ... ity#p14965

Sure, I can hear you say that using licences for ID purposes may lead to other restrictions of freedom, i.e. 'Use licences for ID, therefore less freedom.' But this isn't an argument, it's a causal link. Arguments are about claims and evidence, not about one phenomenon causing another. Take this example:

'Tom's shoes are wet, so I think it must be raining outside.' Here my conclusion is 'I think it must be raining outside', supported by the evidence that 'Tom's shoes are wet'. However, this is different from the causal link: 'It's raining, therefore Tom's shoes are wet.' Be careful not to mix up causes with evidence.

mcelroytutoring , AjiteshArun , GMATNinja , mikemcgarry , egmat , RonPurewal , DmitryFarber , MagooshExpert , ccooley , VeritasPrepKarishma, other experts-- please enlighten the meaning of highlighted part.
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 1
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2018, 01:34
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8574
Location: Pune, India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2018, 06:19
1
1
Shivz wrote:
Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?

Argument:

- Proposed new requirements for driver’s licenses would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system.
- This is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
- Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
- In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

Conclusion: Proposed new req are un-American.

What is the assumption?
The argument tells us that the new requirements are un-American. It tells us that the new requirements could limit freedom. The assumption could be that which links limiting freedom to un-American.

(A) The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
Irrelevant

(B) The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers “dissidents.”
The problem is that the govt "could" curtail activities. What it is will actually do is beyond our argument. The ability to curtail freedom is the problem itself.

(C) Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.

(D) The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
Again, this is irrelevant. What the Americans want or are willing to do is not the point here. The argument does not assume that the citizens will have problems. The argument is just saying that the ability of the govt to control is unacceptable. The citizens may have no problems. Still the restrictions are un-American. For example, a person may not have issues if his/her spouse mentally harasses her/him - but that doesn't make the harassment acceptable.

(E) Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Again, the argument does not assume anything about what people will or ought to do. It talks about what the govt should not do.

_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal &nbs [#permalink] 02 Sep 2018, 06:19

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 43 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by