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

 It is currently 21 Nov 2018, 04:07

### 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

Manager
Joined: 16 Sep 2011
Posts: 92
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2018, 06:42
Hi Karishma,

thanks for the answer but for me answer is easy once you find conclusion. but i got confused between unamerican as conclusion or last line this would make other limits as conclusion.

Agree that unamerican one comes with because which explains why it is unamerican and i too agree on this...I thought this is a intermediate conclusion

THe final conclusion is this could make other limits on freedom acceptable ....any conclusion should pass "Why"test unless prediction/recommendation is there...

Last line passes the test as in why this could make other limits acceptable because new proposal is unamerican and such requirements restrict the movements and activities.... moreover last line is a short of future prediction, "in time "

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.

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8580
Location: Pune, India
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2018, 03:52
1
pk123 wrote:
Hi Karishma,

thanks for the answer but for me answer is easy once you find conclusion. but i got confused between unamerican as conclusion or last line this would make other limits as conclusion.

Agree that unamerican one comes with because which explains why it is unamerican and i too agree on this...I thought this is a intermediate conclusion

THe final conclusion is this could make other limits on freedom acceptable ....any conclusion should pass "Why"test unless prediction/recommendation is there...

Last line passes the test as in why this could make other limits acceptable because new proposal is unamerican and such requirements restrict the movements and activities.... moreover last line is a short of future prediction, "in time "

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.

Note that everything after un-American is an explanation of why it is un-American. Just that it is split into multiple sentences.

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.

Hence the only conclusion is that it is un-American.

Besides no other choice can be an assumption of the argument.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

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

Manager
Joined: 20 Jun 2017
Posts: 88
GMAT 1: 570 Q49 V19
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2018, 04:45
Another beauty, what's required over here is to identify the conclusion correctly.
The conclusion is: 'Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American'.
Now why is it un-American is even more important to decipher.
The reason it is un-American is because if this proposal is implemented it would turn America to a totalitarian regime and the author wants to say that America is not a totalitarian regime.
Now based on this understanding lets look at option C and D as these are the ones creating most confusion.
Lets negate D: now even if majority of Americans are willing to give up their rights to travel without identification, how is this related to the conclusion that this act is un-American.
Now lets negate C: if blanket restrictions on law abiding individuals are NOT contrary to American culture and law then the whole argument goes for a toss.

Sent from my ONE E1003 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal &nbs [#permalink] 03 Sep 2018, 04:45

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 43 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by