The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme : Critical Reasoning (CR)

appuvar

Intern

Joined: 22 Oct 2006

Posts: 42

Own Kudos [?]: 4 [3]

Given Kudos: 0

Location: India

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

01 Jan 2007, 06:13

1

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

My take is C... byPOE

A. Not a Choice as OUt of scope.
B is ruled out!
C. SO SO...Doesn't appear to be a clearcut assumption
D.Argument doesn't talk abt the right to travel although there is a reference of driver's license. rule it out!
E. Rule it out straight away...as it is generalization against all the govt regs.

As A,B,D,E are not the choices, C is the answer by POE. c appears to be an inference rather than an assumption...

L

GyanOne

CEO

Joined: 24 Jul 2011

Status: World Rank #4 MBA Admissions Consultant

Posts: 3187

Own Kudos [?]: 1585 [1]

Given Kudos: 33

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V48

GRE 1: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

01 Mar 2013, 21:03

1

Kudos

Expert Reply

[A]: There is no information at all here about the Presidential election. Incorrect.
[B]: There is no reference to "dissidents", either directly or indirectly in the stimulus. Incorrect.
[C]: If using licenses as identification is un-American and could lead to restriction on movement, then the restrictions are also un-American, and therefore contrary to American culture and law. CORRECT.
[D]: The stimulus says nothing about what the majority of Americans feel. Incorrect.
[E]: This is an over-generalization. If Americans ought to oppose some restriction on their freedom, it does not mean that they should oppose all government regulation of their lives. Incorrect.

C is the right answer.

WpackAlumDukeBound

Intern

Joined: 08 Jan 2013

Status:Attending Duke in May!

Posts: 19

Own Kudos [?]: 125 [2]

Given Kudos: 18

Location: United States (NC)

Concentration: Leadership, Strategy

Schools: Kenan-Flagler '16 (A) Duke Fuqua (M)

GMAT 1: 640 Q42 V35

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

15 Apr 2013, 21:09

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

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.

D can not possibly be the answer because Americans ARE currently required to travel and move about WITH identification. Choice D is a direct contradiction to the stated facts - the passage states that [Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American]. This statement tells you that licenses ARE directly used for operating a motor vehicle. And using common sense, that's what a Driver's License is. It's the law to drive with a Driver's License, you get a ticket if you're driving without one. All modes of traveling aside from hitch-hiking and just straight walking to where you're going require some form of ID. The premise is talking about adding to that restriction, using a Driver License to put more restriction in addition to the travel laws that currently exist.

S

hwgmat2015

Manager

Joined: 12 Mar 2015

Posts: 59

Own Kudos [?]: 48 [2]

Given Kudos: 92

Concentration: Leadership, Finance

GPA: 3.9

WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

10 Feb 2016, 12:34

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

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 !! :-D

S

niteshwaghray

Manager

Joined: 14 Sep 2015

Posts: 59

Own Kudos [?]: 398 [1]

Given Kudos: 19

Location: India

Schools: Jones '20 (WL) WP Carey" 20 (D) Boston U '20 (WL) Olin '20 (S) ISB '19 (D) Simon '20 (WL)

GMAT 1: 700 Q45 V40 Verified score

GPA: 3.41

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

17 Apr 2017, 14:25

1

Kudos

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.

Shivz

Intern

Joined: 26 May 2018

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]

Given Kudos: 35

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

02 Sep 2018, 02:34

Hi I am still confused between C and D. Can you please clarify with proper justification?

L

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Posts: 14823

Own Kudos [?]: 64923 [5]

Given Kudos: 426

Location: Pune, India

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

02 Sep 2018, 07:19

3

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

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.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(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.

Answer (C)

S

pk123

Manager

Joined: 16 Sep 2011

Posts: 112

Own Kudos [?]: 92 [0]

Given Kudos: 158

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

02 Sep 2018, 07:42

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 "

Need your expert reply

VeritasKarishma wrote:

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.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(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.

Answer (C)

L

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Posts: 14823

Own Kudos [?]: 64923 [4]

Given Kudos: 426

Location: Pune, India

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

03 Sep 2018, 04:52

4

Kudos

Expert Reply

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 "

Need your expert reply

VeritasKarishma wrote:

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.
This is what links restrictions to against American traditions. So should be the answer.

(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.

Answer (C)

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.

P

KaranB1

Manager

Joined: 17 Aug 2018

Posts: 119

Own Kudos [?]: 156 [0]

Given Kudos: 150

Location: India

Schools: IIMA WBS '22

GMAT 1: 640 Q46 V32 Verified score

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

01 Jan 2019, 19:30

C vs D.

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

Premise: because it would require U.S citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers".

Prompt does not assume that Americans are not willing to give up travel or move without documents. Rather prompt assumes that require American citizens to carry documents to move is un-American.

Therefore, C is the best answer choice and we can safely eliminate D and all the other answer choices.

B

AKG1593

Manager

Joined: 20 Dec 2013

Posts: 183

Own Kudos [?]: 290 [1]

Given Kudos: 35

Location: India

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

01 Jan 2019, 21:07

1

Kudos

I was confused between C and D. Others are out of scope/context.
Somehow I chose D because it talks about the majority of Americans *NOT* willing to give up their right to move freely without id.

If I negate D : it means "Americans are willing to give up the right to move freely without ID". How would the requirement, which is basically the argument, be "un-American" without this assumption?

C looked a bit vague for the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

P

KaranB1

Manager

Joined: 17 Aug 2018

Posts: 119

Own Kudos [?]: 156 [0]

Given Kudos: 150

Location: India

Schools: IIMA WBS '22

GMAT 1: 640 Q46 V32 Verified score

GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

01 Jan 2019, 21:44

AKG1593 wrote:

I was confused between C and D. Others are out of scope/context.
Somehow I chose D because it talks about the majority of Americans *NOT* willing to give up their right to move freely without id.

If I negate D : it means "Americans are willing to give up the right to move freely without ID". How would the requirement, which is basically the argument, be "un-American" without this assumption?

C looked a bit vague for the argument.

Posted from my mobile device

Willing is not an issue at hand and does not affect the conclusion.

It is about the tradition of the country and non-adherence is deemed as non-American.

Eg. If I say that wearing western cloth is non-indian does not mean that Indians are not willing to wear western clothes.

B

Shivangisharmaa

Intern

Joined: 04 Oct 2021

Posts: 10

Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]

Given Kudos: 24

Location: India

GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40 Verified score

GPA: 4

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

20 Apr 2022, 00:02

Can someone pls explain how we understood that 'Using licenses...is un-American' is the conclusion?
I took the conclusion to be the last line 'In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable'.

Thank you in advance

G

ReedArnoldMPREP

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 30 Apr 2021

Posts: 521

Own Kudos [?]: 486 [2]

Given Kudos: 37

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

20 Apr 2022, 04:58

2

Kudos

Expert Reply

Shivangisharmaa wrote:

Can someone pls explain how we understood that 'Using licenses...is un-American' is the conclusion?
I took the conclusion to be the last line 'In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable'.

Thank you in advance

Every part of a CR argument is one of four things: premise, conclusion, counterpoint, or background. Background is dull--just information to 'ground' you in the argument. Counterpoints can have their own full 'premise conclusion,' and some premises are also 'intermediate conclusions,' but everything should fit into these buckets.

If 'this could make other limits on freedom acceptable' is the main conclusion, then what role does the 'using licenses is unamerican' play? It's not background--it's far too opinionated. It's not a counterpoint--it fits in line with the author's argument. So it's either premise or conclusion. If it's a premise, it supports the conclusion. If it's a conclusion, it's supported by the premise.

For such a situation, use the 'therefore/because' test:

'Using licenses is unamerican; therefore, it could make other limits on freedom acceptable.'
(Using licenses could make other limits on freedom acceptable because it is unamerican).

Or

'Using licenses could make other limits on freedom acceptable; therefore, it is unamerican.'
(it is unamerican to use licenses because it could make other limits on freedom acceptable).

The second version makes sense--the first does not. So the main conclusion is that using licenses this way is unamerican.

We have a bit of an intermediate conclusion with the statement you thought was the conclusion. The logic of the argument is something like:

Using licenses as nat'l ID ~ carring papers ---> allow governments to track movements--->could bring other limits on freedom----->using licenses this way is unamerican

Since the possible new limits on freedom is based on the premises that using nat'l IDs could lead to the gov't tracking movements, it is a 'conclusion.' But it also supports the main conclusion, so it's a 'premise.' These are what we typically call 'intermediate conclusion,' or 'premises for which support is provided.'

B

Its_me_aka_ak

Manager

Joined: 16 Jul 2023

Posts: 128

Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]

Given Kudos: 281

Location: India

Schools: ISB '25 Ivey Rotman IIMA

GPA: 3.46

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

27 Oct 2023, 11:16

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.

i assumed that the conclusion is "In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable." so i went with B. where did i go wrong for seeing the conclusion.

G

Kratosgmat

Manager

Joined: 26 Sep 2022

Posts: 86

Own Kudos [?]: 2 [0]

Given Kudos: 40

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, Other

GRE 1: Q164 V158

Send PM

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

28 Oct 2023, 18:55

Conclusion : Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American
CONCEPT
1. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American
2. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”

How do we link 1 and 2
GAP :
requiring U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” is un-American - Basically what C says.

gmatclubot

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme [#permalink]

28 Oct 2023, 18:55

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requireme