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.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
01 Aug 2024, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
91% (01:14) correct
9%
(01:38)
wrong
based on 260
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
To prevent the incidence of highway robberies, the government of Baptesia formed a Highway Patrol Force two years back whose sole task was to patrol the country’s highways and prevent highway robberies. Ever since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force, there have been only a handful of highway robberies and the individual losses suffered in these robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force. The government of Baptesia should, thus, disband the Highway Patrol Force and provide compensation to victims of highway robberies instead.
The above argument is flawed because:
(A) It ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years.
(B) It unjustifiably assumes that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies.
(C) It ignores the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force could be used for other purposes instead of being disbanded.
(D) It makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion.
(E) It does not consider data from other countries, that have similar task forces, before arriving at its conclusion.
The above argument is flawed because:
(A) It ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years.
(B) It unjustifiably assumes that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies.
(C) It ignores the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force could be used for other purposes instead of being disbanded.
(D) It makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion.
(E) It does not consider data from other countries, that have similar task forces, before arriving at its conclusion.
05 Aug 2024, 04:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
A is the right answer
The argument overlooks the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has effectively deterred highway robberies, leading to the reduction in their number. Disbanding the force might result in an increase in robberies, which the argument fails to address.
The argument overlooks the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has effectively deterred highway robberies, leading to the reduction in their number. Disbanding the force might result in an increase in robberies, which the argument fails to address.
05 Aug 2024, 19:26
Kudos
Bookmarks
To solve this question, let us deploy IMS's four-step technique.
STEP #1 -> IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
STEP #2 -> X-RAY THE ARGUMENT
In a flaw question, it is a must to x-ray the argument and deconstruct it. Let us therefore read the argument first and deconstruct it by figuring out the conclusion and the premise(s).
PREMISE: Ever since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force, there have been only a handful of highway robberies and the individual losses suffered in these robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force.
INFORMATION: To prevent the incidence of highway robberies, the government of Baptesia formed a Highway Patrol Force two years back whose sole task was to patrol the country’s highways and prevent highway robberies.
STEP #3 -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER
To frame a shadow answer, we must know what the correct answer should do. In this question, the correct answer must tell us what the flaw in this argument is. The author concludes that the Highway Patrol Force should be disbanded and compensation should instead be provided to victims of highway robberies. To substantiate his conclusion, the author points out that there have been only a handful of highway robberies and the individual losses suffered in these robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force ever since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force. A question that rightfully should come to our mind is this: If there have been only a handful of highway robberies since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force, is the Highway Patrol Force not impactive, meaning should it not continue to remain instead of being disbanded in order for the robberies to not swell? Clearly, the author must be assuming that the Highway Patrol Force has little to do with the small number of highway robberies. And this becomes the flaw.
SHADOW ANSWER: The argument assumes without justification that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has little to do with keeping highway robberies in check.
STEP #4 -> ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS
Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.
(A) It ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years. | MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER | By assuming that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has little to do with keeping highway robberies in check, the author conveniently ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years. The suggestion that the government of Baptesia should disband the Highway Patrol Force (and provide compensation to victims of highway robberies instead) can then do more harm than good, for if the Highway Patrol Force gets disbanded, the robberies may swell with some robberies even leading to huge losses and placing a burden on the exchequer. | KEEP
(B) It unjustifiably assumes that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies. | NOT A MATCH |
The argument categorically mentions that the individual losses suffered in the robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force. In other words, the government does have money to maintain the Highway Patrol Force, and the author in fact suggests that the Highway Patrol Force be disbanded, meaning that the funds used to maintain the Highway Patrol Force should be redirected to pay compensation. For the argument to unjustifiably assume that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies, it should have recommended the compensation of victims without asking for the Highway Patrol Force to be disbanded. | ELIMINATE
(C) It ignores the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force could be used for other purposes instead of being disbanded. | NOT A MATCH | The argument states that the Highway Patrol Force's sole task was to patrol the country’s highways and prevent highway robberies. Since there is no possibility mentioned of the Highway Patrol Force being used for other purposes, the author obviously does not need to consider such a possibility. | ELIMINATE
(D) It makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion. | NOT A MATCH | We do not know whether the facts are unverified; therefore, it will be wrong on our part to say that the argument makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion. | ELIMINATE
(E) It does not consider data from other countries, that have similar task forces, before arriving at its conclusion. | NOT A MATCH | If data from other countries were considered, the argument would be even more flawed than it is on account of the fact that the author would then be assuming that Baptesia was similar to other countries; remember, we do not have any information indicating that Baptesia and other countries could be similar. | ELIMINATE
Therefore, (A) is the correct answer.
STEP #1 -> IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE
Let us read the question stem to identify the question type.
Quote:
The stem indicates a flaw question.
STEP #2 -> X-RAY THE ARGUMENT
In a flaw question, it is a must to x-ray the argument and deconstruct it. Let us therefore read the argument first and deconstruct it by figuring out the conclusion and the premise(s).
Quote:
CONCLUSION: The government of Baptesia should disband the Highway Patrol Force and provide compensation to victims of highway robberies instead.
PREMISE: Ever since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force, there have been only a handful of highway robberies and the individual losses suffered in these robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force.
INFORMATION: To prevent the incidence of highway robberies, the government of Baptesia formed a Highway Patrol Force two years back whose sole task was to patrol the country’s highways and prevent highway robberies.
STEP #3 -> FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER
To frame a shadow answer, we must know what the correct answer should do. In this question, the correct answer must tell us what the flaw in this argument is. The author concludes that the Highway Patrol Force should be disbanded and compensation should instead be provided to victims of highway robberies. To substantiate his conclusion, the author points out that there have been only a handful of highway robberies and the individual losses suffered in these robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force ever since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force. A question that rightfully should come to our mind is this: If there have been only a handful of highway robberies since the formation of the Highway Patrol Force, is the Highway Patrol Force not impactive, meaning should it not continue to remain instead of being disbanded in order for the robberies to not swell? Clearly, the author must be assuming that the Highway Patrol Force has little to do with the small number of highway robberies. And this becomes the flaw.
SHADOW ANSWER: The argument assumes without justification that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has little to do with keeping highway robberies in check.
STEP #4 -> ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS
Options that do not match the shadow answer can be eliminated.
(A) It ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years. | MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER | By assuming that the Highway Patrol Force's presence has little to do with keeping highway robberies in check, the author conveniently ignores the fact that the presence of the Highway Patrol Force could be the reason for the small number of highway robberies in the past two years. The suggestion that the government of Baptesia should disband the Highway Patrol Force (and provide compensation to victims of highway robberies instead) can then do more harm than good, for if the Highway Patrol Force gets disbanded, the robberies may swell with some robberies even leading to huge losses and placing a burden on the exchequer. | KEEP
(B) It unjustifiably assumes that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies. | NOT A MATCH |
The argument categorically mentions that the individual losses suffered in the robberies were far less than the expenses incurred on maintaining the Highway Patrol Force. In other words, the government does have money to maintain the Highway Patrol Force, and the author in fact suggests that the Highway Patrol Force be disbanded, meaning that the funds used to maintain the Highway Patrol Force should be redirected to pay compensation. For the argument to unjustifiably assume that the government has enough money to pay compensation to the victims of highway robberies, it should have recommended the compensation of victims without asking for the Highway Patrol Force to be disbanded. | ELIMINATE
(C) It ignores the possibility that the Highway Patrol Force could be used for other purposes instead of being disbanded. | NOT A MATCH | The argument states that the Highway Patrol Force's sole task was to patrol the country’s highways and prevent highway robberies. Since there is no possibility mentioned of the Highway Patrol Force being used for other purposes, the author obviously does not need to consider such a possibility. | ELIMINATE
(D) It makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion. | NOT A MATCH | We do not know whether the facts are unverified; therefore, it will be wrong on our part to say that the argument makes use of unverified facts to arrive at a conclusion. | ELIMINATE
(E) It does not consider data from other countries, that have similar task forces, before arriving at its conclusion. | NOT A MATCH | If data from other countries were considered, the argument would be even more flawed than it is on account of the fact that the author would then be assuming that Baptesia was similar to other countries; remember, we do not have any information indicating that Baptesia and other countries could be similar. | ELIMINATE
Therefore, (A) is the correct answer.
