Richard is a terrible driver. He has had at least five traffic violati

Question

Richard is a terrible driver. He has had at least five traffic violations in the past year.

Which of the following can be said about the above claim?

(A) This is an example of an argument that is directed against the source of the claim rather than the claim itself.
(B) The statement is fallacious because it contains an illegitimate appeal to authority.
(C) The above argument obtains its strength from a similarity of two compared situations.
(D) The argument is built-upon an assumption that is not stated but rather is concealed.
(E) In the above statements, there is a shifting in the meaning of terms , causing a fallacy of ambiguity.

likhith · Answer

I got the answer D.  
Assumption being traffic violations makes you a bad driver.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

(A) This is an example of an argument that is directed against the source of the claim rather than the claim itself.  -  the argument is not directed at the source. It in fact has the     structure.   
(B) The statement is fallacious because it contains an illegitimate appeal to authority.  -  the argument does not appeal to any authority.  
 (C) The above argument obtains its strength from a similarity of two compared situations.  -  we do not have ''two situations'' presented in the argument.  
 (D) The argument is built-upon an assumption that is not stated but raider is concealed. - the passage certainly assumes that 5 or more traffic violations is sufficient to label anyone as a ''terrible driver''. If this were not true, then the conclusion will not hold. Hence,  (D) is the right answer choice.  
  
(E) In the above statements, there is a shifting in the meaning of terms , causing a fallacy of ambiguity.  -  there is no ambiguity here.

egmat · Answer

Hi there,

Let me walk you through this step by step.

First,  let's identify the argument's structure:
-  Conclusion:  Richard is a terrible driver.
-  Evidence:  He has had at least  five  traffic violations in the past year.

Now ask yourself: does the evidence AUTOMATICALLY prove the conclusion? Not quite. The argument jumps from 'traffic violations' to 'terrible driver' without ever explaining WHY one leads to the other. The author is ASSUMING that having  five  or more traffic violations makes someone a terrible driver. But that assumption is never stated — it's hidden beneath the surface.

Maybe those violations were all parking tickets. Maybe they were technicalities. The argument works ONLY if you accept the  unstated bridge: traffic violations = terrible driving . That's a   concealed assumption  .

Now let's eliminate the other choices:

A)   Ad hominem  means attacking the person making a claim instead of the claim itself. But here, nobody is making a claim that's being attacked — the argument is simply drawing a conclusion about Richard. Not a match.

B)   Appeal to authority  means citing an expert or authority figure to support a claim. No authority is mentioned anywhere. Not a match.

C)   Argument by analogy  means comparing two similar situations. There's no comparison happening here. Not a match.

E)   Ambiguity/equivocation  means a word shifts meaning mid-argument. No term changes meaning here. Not a match.

That leaves  D  — the argument relies on a hidden, unstated assumption connecting traffic violations to being a terrible driver.

Key Takeaway:  Whenever a conclusion seems to 'leap' beyond what the evidence directly states, look for the unstated assumption that bridges the gap. That hidden link is often the key to understanding an argument's structure.

Answer: D

Richard is a terrible driver. He has had at least five traffic violati

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

Richard is a terrible driver. He has had at least five traffic violati

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