Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
27% (01:51) correct
73%
(02:06)
wrong
based on 956
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The purpose of the proposed law requiring a doctor's prescription for obtaining hypodermic needles is to lower the incidence of drug-related deaths, both accidental and intentional, involving hypodermic needles. But even knitting needles can be lethal if they fall into the wrong hands; yet everyone would agree that imposing legal restrictions on obtaining knitting needles would be preposterous. Hence the proposed law involving hypodermic makes no sense and should not be enacted.
Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the argument above?
(A) Knitting needles have been known to cause injury and death.
(B) The benefits of hypodermic needles outweigh those of knitting needles.
(C) The proposed law would not deter the sort of activity known to result in drug-related deaths.
(D) The proposed law could not be effectively enforced.
(E) Knitting needles are not readily available to anybody who wants to obtain them.
Which of the following, if true, would provide most support for the argument above?
(A) Knitting needles have been known to cause injury and death.
(B) The benefits of hypodermic needles outweigh those of knitting needles.
(C) The proposed law would not deter the sort of activity known to result in drug-related deaths.
(D) The proposed law could not be effectively enforced.
(E) Knitting needles are not readily available to anybody who wants to obtain them.
30 Jun 2018, 01:57
Kudos
Bookmarks
To get this one, it's important to acknowledge the strategy the author is using. They aren't saying that hypodermic needles aren't dangerous, not are they arguing that the law wouldn't work to make people safer. They're simply bringing up a different case. "Hey, this is dangerous, and no one wants to ban it. So we shouldn't ban this other dangerous thing!" This is a form of reduction ad absurdum, in which we try to make the logical consequences of an opponent's argument as preposterous as possible: "If you believe X, you also have to believe some crazier thing that you don't want to agree with. Therefore, discard X."
There was actually a very famous statement like this. When asked about the harmful effects of cigarettes, a tobacco executive said "Anything can be considered harmful. Applesauce is harmful if you get too much of it." Naturally, the interviewer came back with what you are probably thinking: People aren't dying from applesauce, so it's a bad parallel!
It's the same thing with this needle argument. The premise does say the knitting needles CAN be lethal, so we have to accept that. But are they actually causing deaths? If not, then maybe the parallel is a poor one, since it has been established in the argument that hypodermics ARE causing deaths. A improves the argument by saying that knitting needles do indeed cause deaths, so it makes at least a little sense for the author to ask why we want to limit access to hypodermics but not to knitting needles.
C, on the other hand, addresses whether the law would curb dangerous behavior. If the author were objecting to the law on the grounds that it would be ineffective, this would be a good strengthener. But since the author is objecting in a completely different way, C doesn't matter.
There was actually a very famous statement like this. When asked about the harmful effects of cigarettes, a tobacco executive said "Anything can be considered harmful. Applesauce is harmful if you get too much of it." Naturally, the interviewer came back with what you are probably thinking: People aren't dying from applesauce, so it's a bad parallel!
It's the same thing with this needle argument. The premise does say the knitting needles CAN be lethal, so we have to accept that. But are they actually causing deaths? If not, then maybe the parallel is a poor one, since it has been established in the argument that hypodermics ARE causing deaths. A improves the argument by saying that knitting needles do indeed cause deaths, so it makes at least a little sense for the author to ask why we want to limit access to hypodermics but not to knitting needles.
C, on the other hand, addresses whether the law would curb dangerous behavior. If the author were objecting to the law on the grounds that it would be ineffective, this would be a good strengthener. But since the author is objecting in a completely different way, C doesn't matter.
General Discussion
21 Jan 2009, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
reply2spg
1. the argument focuses on WHY the proposed law makes no sense and should not be enacted rather than compares the benifits of kinds of needles, so B is IRRELEVANT, B out
2. C very subtle, but C out. Although the law WOULD NOT deter many activities that result in deaths, C CANNOT suggest that the law WOULD deter knitting needles (which is assumed to be the cause of drug-related deaths).
3. The effectiveness of the law does not mean that the law making no sense, so D cannot help explain why the law should not be enacted. D out
4. E suggests that knitting needles available to amost every persons. That is, the proposed law must make sense. E weakens rather than strenthens the argument, E out
A is the best
