The recent increase in the number of accidents related to bungee

Question

The recent increase in the number of accidents related to bungee jumping has led to a lot of people asking for a ban on bungee jumping. Opponents of the ban argue that it is a personal choice whether someone wants to indulge in bungee jumping and the constitution guarantees every individual’s right to freedom. They assert that as long as nobody else is getting harmed, an individual should be allowed to indulge in bungee jumping.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument made by the opponents of the ban?

(A) Bungee jumping is safer than other activities such as free style rappelling or zip lining.

(B) The operating licenses of a lot of bungee jumping companies have been cancelled after incidents of accidents were reported from these companies.

(C) Most accidents related to bungee jumping happen because of a weak or defective bungee cord.

(D) In the more than 400 documented accidents connected to bungee jumping, nobody other than the person making the jump has ever got injured.

(E) Bungee jumping companies can be allowed to operate as long as they implement some new safety measures.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:

Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler  
  Data Insights Butler

Aadichoudhary2405 · Answer

Hey everyone, acc to me the correct answer of this question is option D. Here the para trys to explain that if one who knows about the risk involved in bungee jumping is ready to take the risk then they should be allowed. This is what the option D imply.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

Answer: D

The opponents of the ban argue that as long as nobody else is getting harmed, people should be free to indulge in bungee jumping. D strengthens this by giving empirical evidence that every time, so far, the only person who has got injured in bungee jumping is the person who is making the jump. As long as this person is aware of the risks involved, it is his personal choice whether to make the jump or not.

(A) The safety aspect of other activities is outside the scope of the argument.

(B) This actually weakens the argument by suggesting somebody other than the person making the jump has had to suffer because of the said accidents.

(C) The cause of the accidents is not our concern in the argument.

(E) Nobody is asking us to make a suggestion as to what bungee jumping companies should do in the future.

viktoria22 · Answer

We have to strength the argument. It is said that:

1. It’s a personal choice (freedom of the individual).
2. The constitution guarantees the right to freedom.
3. Nobody else is harmed by the activity (only the jumper assumes the risk).

The main point is that  bungee jumping doesn't harm OTHERS . Only  the JUMPER can harm .

Analyzing the Options:

(A)  Bungee jumping is safer than other activities like rappelling or zip lining. 
This compares bungee jumping to other risky activities but doesn’t address the core of the opponents' argument (personal freedom and no harm to others).  Irrelevant.

(B)  The operating licenses of many bungee jumping companies have been cancelled after accidents. 
This suggests stricter regulation, which could imply that the activity is dangerous. This  weakens  the opponents' argument, not strengthens it.

(C)  Most accidents happen because of a weak or defective bungee cord. 
This highlights a cause of accidents but doesn’t support the opponents' position. If anything, it suggests that the activity is risky due to equipment failure, which doesn’t help their case.

( D)    In over 400 documented accidents, nobody other than the jumper has ever been injured.  
This directly supports the opponents' claim that "nobody else is harmed." If accidents only affect the jumper, then it truly is a personal risk, reinforcing the idea that banning it would infringe on personal freedom without protecting others.  This is the best strengthener.

(E)  Bungee jumping companies can operate if they implement new safety measures. 
This suggests a compromise (regulation over banning), but it doesn’t directly strengthen the opponents' argument about personal freedom and lack of harm to others.

The answer is D

The recent increase in the number of accidents related to bungee

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The recent increase in the number of accidents related to bungee

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards