Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have

Question

Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to protect children from danger. Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous that skateboarding in the park.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councilor's argument?

(a) The reason for requiring environmental reviews is to ensure that projected developments do not harm the natural environment. Currently, environmental concerns are less compelling than economic concerns, but in the long run, the environment must be protected. Therefore, the requirement for environmental reviews should not be waived.

(b) Insecticides are designed to protect crops against insect damage. Aphids damage tomato crops, but using insecticides against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests. Since aphids damage tomato crops less than the insecticide-resistant pests do, insecticides should not be used against aphids on tomato crops.

(c) The purpose of compulsory vaccination for schoolchildren was to protect both the children themselves and others in the community against smallpox. Smallpox was indeed a dreadful disease, but it has now been eliminated from the word's population. So children should not be vaccinated against it.

(d) The function of a sealer on wood siding is to retard deterioration caused by weather. However, cedar is a wood that is naturally resistant to weather-related damage and thus does not need additional protection. Sealers, therefore, should not be applied to cedar siding.

(e) Traffic patterns that involve one-way streets are meant to accelerate the flow of traffic in otherwise congested areas. However, it would be detrimental to the South Main Street area to have traffic move faster. So traffic pattern involving one-way streets should not be implemented there.

u0422811 · Answer

I will give the OA once I get some answers as well as some logic behind why people chose what they chose.

Thanks!

kraizada84 · Answer

IMO A, 
Reasoning in A is similar to the argument's reasoning.

ChrisLele · Answer

Hi, let me see if I can take this apart :-D

First I just wanted to say that this sort of parallel reasoning, common on the LSAT, is not found on the GMAT. Good to keep in mind lest you worry too much about a question such as this one. That said, let's dissect the argument

Something (the ordinance) has a purpose (to protect skateboarding children). Because it does not do so (kids will end up skateboarding in the streets), this something should not be implemented (measure should not be passed). Now let's dissect Answer (E): Something (one-way streets) has a purpose (to make traffic flow faster). Because it does not do so (traffic will not flow faster if South Main Street had one-way streets), this something should not be implemented (one-way streets should not be used on South Main Street). Therefore, (E) is the answer.

kraizada84 · Answer

Could you explain me why is A wrong??

boomtangboy · Answer

Can someone explain why B is wrong?

I didnt choose it over E

u0422811 · Answer

You are actually correct in that the OA is B. Care to explain your reasoning?

vdbhamare · Answer

B :- As one good thing leads to other bad thing

MacFauz · Answer

Can you explain why its not B??

It seems to follow a similar reasoning

Ordinances are for safety --> Park unsafe --> But roads even more unsafe --> no ordinances on park
Insecticides to protect crops --> Aphids destroy crops --> Resistant insects destroy more --> No insecticides

Desperate123 · Answer

Expert says E is the answer .. But OA says B is the ans.. Can anybody tell me which is the correct answer?

TheRunawayFound · Answer

+1 B

I think that this question asks about the "lesser evil":

Argument:
Skating in the park is dangerous ---- Skating in the streets is more dangerous ---> Its ok to skate in the parks (skate in the park is less harmfull than skate in the streets)

Option B:
Aphids damage tomato crops ---- Insecticides kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests that damage tomatoes crops (even more than aphids do) ----> dont use insecticides (aphids are less harmfull than insecticides)

Bull78 · Answer

IMO B

The argument provides a reason for not banning a known danger, which is to prevent a heavier danger (skating in the streets).

In option B the use of insecticide generates more damage from the insecticide resistant insects that now are being killed by the wasps, than from the aphids (less damage), therefore we are preventing a heavier damage by not using the insecticide.

Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have ordinances restricting where skateboarding can be done would be to  protect children from danger . Skateboarding in the town's River Park is undoubtedly dangerous, but we should not pass an ordinance prohibiting it. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will most certainly skateboard in the streets. And  skateboarding in the streets is more dangerous  that skateboarding in the park.

(b) Insecticides are designed to  protect crops against insect damage . Aphids damage tomato crops, but using insecticides against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests. Since aphids  damage tomato crops less  than the insecticide-resistant pests do, insecticides should not be used against aphids on tomato crops.

This sort of questions take me around 3 minutes to solve. Please provide any hints to improve timing on solving them.

Cheers

sanki779 · Answer

I initially went for option E but later choose option B. Reason for eliminating option E was option E talks about removing congestion in general but it doesnt talk about present conditions on "Main Street" hence prefered to go with option B (lesser of 2 evils)

mandyrhtdm · Answer

All i will say is that B is teh Clear winner in E the market interest is not the aim of traffic! so it can't be the answer

And regarding E, is question ne lele ki Lelee.

mohan514 · Answer

educated guess in three min led me to option b
it was more pf a poe rather than guess
like chances of misusing the skateboard and hence increased chances of accidents
and a most matched scenario

OldFritz · Answer

Is E your final answer? Or you want to have another go at this one? :-D

smartyman · Answer

Please comment on explanation:

I chose B:
The structure of the stimulus:
1 sentence: Background information
2 sentence: Premise
3 + 4 sentence: Conclusion (Comparison between 2 things)

Only answer B give a clear comparison between 2 things and made a conclusion based on the merits of the 2 things compared. Since, we are asked to find an analogy to the stimulus; hence answer B.

baaniNitin · Answer

Can someone please explain why not  A  ??

nightblade354 · Answer

Bumping for further discussion

TheGraceful · Answer

GMATNinja ,

Sir please help here. I was able to eliminate A, C and D i.e. I narrowed to 'B' and 'E'. I could NOT further eliminate anything and ended up selecting 'E'

Although another expert had answered and provided explanation, that just echoed me. No mention of eliminating other candidate.
Can you please help with your answer and explanation in your style/words?

Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have

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

Town Councilor: The only reason for the town to have

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