Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red light

Question

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. After all, in order to serve a useful purpose, a law must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits. But pedestrians who invariably violate this law are clearly not dissuaded by it; and those who comply with the law do not need it, since they would never cross against red light even if there were no law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights.

The mayor’s argument is flawed because it

(A) takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights

(B) uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion

(C) ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits

(D) fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights

(E) provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights

TheStoryteller · Answer

(A) takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights
--Wrong. Out of Scope.
(B) uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion
--Wrong. The use of the word 'law' has the same sense in both places.
(C) ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits.
--Correct! The argument clearly states: "in order to serve a useful purpose, a law must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits." Thus this option brings out the flaw in the argument.
(D) fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights
--Irrelevant. The argument states as:"But pedestrians who invariably violate this law..." 
(E) provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights
--Irrelevant.

Codebug4it · Answer

Answer:  Option D

The argument says law serves no purpose for pedestrians who always cross against the red light and who would never cross against red light.

But it fails to consider people who comply with law but sometimes cross against the red light and sometimes doesn't because there is no law.    This might be because these pedestrians cross if it is safe and avoid if it is not. Once law is enacted then these pedestrians will comply with it and it will serve its purpose.

This flaw has been mentioned in Option "D", hence correct.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

We have pedestrian law that some people do not follow, while others who do follow it never need it because these people (who follow the law) would never cross against a red light, irrespective of whether there's a law or not.

But what if the presence of the law is the real reason why some people (among those who follow the law) actually end up following it? If such a law were absent, then some of these people will not have an incentive to avoid crossing against a red light (since they may assume that no law = perfectly legal to walk against red light). This is the logical flaw in the argument.

The mayor’s argument is flawed because it

(A)  takes for granted that most automobile drivers will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights  - the argument is not centered on what the 'automobile drivers' do. Hence,  eliminate (A)

(B)  uses the word “law” in one sense in the premises and in another sense in the conclusion  - the passage does not make such a distinction. Hence,  eliminate (B)

(C)  ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits  - In this passage, the "usefulness" of a law is being judged by its capacity to 'deter' the behavior it tries to prohibit. While some people may choose to violate a law, it still keeps others "safe". The safety of pedestrians is certainly a factor that needs to be considered when judging the usefulness of a law. So, if the pedestrian law deters at least some people from crossing against a red light, it might help protect these people from pedestrian related accidents, which could have no limits if such a law didn't exist in the first place. (C) does not hold merit. Hence,  eliminate (C)

(D)  fails to consider whether the law ever dissuades people who sometimes but not always cross against red lights  -  this  is exactly what we are looking for. Hence,   (D) is the right answer choice.

(E)  provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is more dangerous than crossing on green lights  - the distinction between red and green lights is irrelevant to the conclusion drawn. Hence,  eliminate (E)

sambitspm · Answer

We need to find the flaw in reasoning.

Premise: Those who don't follow rules, will not follow law even if it is punishable.
Premise: Those who follow rules, will follow law even if it is not punishable
Conclusion: Ban the law

It fails to consider that there might be a segment of people who follow the law only because it is a law.

This flaw is clearly stated in Option D

unraveled · Answer

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights serves no useful purpose. After all, in order to serve a useful purpose, a l aw must deter the kind of behavior it prohibits . But pedestrians who invariably violate this law are clearly not dissuaded by it; and those who comply with the law do not need it, since they would never cross against red light even if there were no law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red lights.

The mayor’s argument is flawed because it

(A) takes for granted that  most automobile drivers  will obey the law that prohibits them from driving through red lights

(B) uses the word “law” in  one sense in the premises and in another sense  in the conclusion

(C) ignores the possibility that a law might not serve a useful purpose even if it does deter the kind of behavior it prohibits - WRONG. Does not helps as it slightly diverts from the core(highlighted text) of the passage.

(D) fails to consider whether the law  ever dissuades people  who sometimes but not always cross against red lights - CORRECT. It elaborates something that may have served the purpose that the law must have had.

(E) provides no evidence that crossing against red lights is  more dangerous than  crossing on green lights

Answer D.

SudhanshuC · Answer

Option D

Law prohibiting crossing of red light is useless -

Type 1 people:  
 People who follow the law will never break it (even if the law has no punishment). 
 So, law is not required for these people.

Type 2 people:  
 People who always break the law will again break it (even if the law has punishment). So, law is not useful for these people.

So, law never serves a useful purpose.

What happens to those people who are in between these 2 extremes - they occasionally break the law of crossing the red signal.
If the deterrence / punishment is present, then at least they will be motivated by fear of the law NOT to break the law.

So, for these sets of people, law is useful.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red light

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

Mayor: The law prohibiting pedestrians from crossing against red light

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