Heern: I object to the mayors proposal that taxicabs pick up and drop

Question

Heern: I object to the mayor’s proposal that taxicabs pick up and drop off passengers only at designated stops. This proposal aims to reduce traffic jams and accidents, but if the mayor herself were affected by such a law, she would oppose it. Thus the proposal is without merit.

The reasoning in Heern’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that this argument

(A) infers, from the claim that a proposal will not achieve one of its aims, that the proposal is entirely without merit

(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the proposed law would not be the most effective way to reduce traffic jams and
accidents

(C) takes for granted that the frequency and location of designated stops would inconvenience most taxicab users

(D) takes for granted that other people would share the mayor’s dissatisfaction with the proposed law

(E) focuses on the mayor’s preferences instead of addressing the merits of the proposal

AUG1523 · Answer

Why is C not correct? E is fine, I get it but after having narrowed down to C vs E, how are you choosing E?

Vishalg34 · Answer

Why is B incorrect, the argument presumes that this proposal is of no merit ?

Posted from my mobile device

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

Yes same here. I think saying mayor’s preferences is to say the inconvenience of the taxi stop.
Anybody can explain? Or pls offer OE.

SamMenon · Answer

EXPLANATION:   
 
Argument Recap:
 
Heern says:

The mayor proposes designated pick-up/drop-off stops for taxis to reduce traffic and accidents. 
 But if the mayor herself had to follow that rule, she would oppose it. 
 Therefore, the proposal has no merit.  
 Flaw:  The argument rejects the proposal based on the  mayor’s hypothetical personal reaction , not on whether the proposal actually achieves its goal.

(A)   “infers, from the claim that a proposal will not achieve one of its aims, that the proposal is entirely without merit” 
 This would be correct if the argument said the proposal  fails  to reduce traffic/accidents.
 But Heern  never evaluates  whether it achieves its aim.
 So  wrong .

(B)   “presumes without justification that the proposed law would not be the most effective way to reduce traffic jams and accidents” 
 Heern never makes any claim about effectiveness or alternatives.
 He only claims the mayor would oppose it if affected.
 So  wrong .

(C)   “takes for granted that the frequency and location of designated stops would inconvenience most taxicab users” 
 He never mentions user inconvenience.
 So  wrong .

(D)   “takes for granted that other people would share the mayor’s dissatisfaction with the proposed law” 
 Heern does  not  claim others would also oppose the law.
 He only uses the mayor’s hypothetical reaction.
 So  wrong .

(E)   “focuses on the mayor’s preferences instead of addressing the merits of the proposal” 
 This matches perfectly.
 Heern rejects the proposal  not by evaluating whether it reduces traffic/accidents , but by saying  the mayor would oppose it if personally affected .

This is a  personal-preference / irrelevant authority flaw .

So  correct  answer:  (E) .

Heern: I object to the mayors proposal that taxicabs pick up and drop

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

Heern: I object to the mayors proposal that taxicabs pick up and drop

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