|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
30 Apr 2026, 19:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
0%
(00:00)
wrong
based on 9
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The lawyer representing several boat owners in a class-action lawsuit argued that because there is no direct evidence that contact with the liquid exhaust produced by speedboats harms the chassis of sailboats that are well maintained, banning speedboats from the lake cannot be justified on the grounds of damaging private property.
Which criticism of the above argument, from among the following, is best?
A. It fails to consider that the chassis of sailboats can be damaged by factors other than the liquid exhaust from speedboats.
B. It fails to acknowledge that sailboats, even those that routinely come in contact with the liquid exhaust produced by speedboats, are generally better-maintained than speed boats are.
C. It does not consider the roles that material quality, design, and human error play in damage caused to a boat’s chassis.
D. It fails to take into account the possibility that the owners of well-maintained sailboats, who are made aware of the danger posed by the liquid exhaust produced by speedboats, may show greater concern regarding potential chassis damage to their sailboats.
E. It ignores how the liquid exhaust can damage the chassis of sailboats that are not well-maintained.
The OA will be automatically revealed on Friday 1st of May 2026 07:00:33 PM Pacific Time Zone
Which criticism of the above argument, from among the following, is best?
A. It fails to consider that the chassis of sailboats can be damaged by factors other than the liquid exhaust from speedboats.
B. It fails to acknowledge that sailboats, even those that routinely come in contact with the liquid exhaust produced by speedboats, are generally better-maintained than speed boats are.
C. It does not consider the roles that material quality, design, and human error play in damage caused to a boat’s chassis.
D. It fails to take into account the possibility that the owners of well-maintained sailboats, who are made aware of the danger posed by the liquid exhaust produced by speedboats, may show greater concern regarding potential chassis damage to their sailboats.
E. It ignores how the liquid exhaust can damage the chassis of sailboats that are not well-maintained.
The OA will be automatically revealed on Friday 1st of May 2026 07:00:33 PM Pacific Time Zone
30 Apr 2026, 23:09
Kudos
Bookmarks
lawyer is saying that there is no direct evidence that liquid exhaust produced by speedboats harms the chassis of sailboats that are well maintained.
conclusion- banning speedboats from lake cant be justified on the grounds of damaging private property.
A if thats the case then it make lawyers case more stronger. so reject.
B this is comparison about maintenance between speedboats and sailboats. reject.
C this talks about factors that has no impact on exhaust. so reject.
D so if owners were aware of such issue then they will make more efforts to avoid getting their sailboats damaged. so even when there is no such stuff happened they will create unnecessary arguments to prove their points. this somewhat favors the lawyer. so reject.
E so lawyer has mentioned only well maintained boats and jumped to conclusion based on that. but what if exhaust can damage not well maintained boats? then the generalization wont stand and weakens the lawyers conclusion. so this does enough to weaken the conclusion.
conclusion- banning speedboats from lake cant be justified on the grounds of damaging private property.
A if thats the case then it make lawyers case more stronger. so reject.
B this is comparison about maintenance between speedboats and sailboats. reject.
C this talks about factors that has no impact on exhaust. so reject.
D so if owners were aware of such issue then they will make more efforts to avoid getting their sailboats damaged. so even when there is no such stuff happened they will create unnecessary arguments to prove their points. this somewhat favors the lawyer. so reject.
E so lawyer has mentioned only well maintained boats and jumped to conclusion based on that. but what if exhaust can damage not well maintained boats? then the generalization wont stand and weakens the lawyers conclusion. so this does enough to weaken the conclusion.
ExpertsGlobal5
30 Apr 2026, 23:48
Kudos
Bookmarks
E seems the right option.
Reject D because even if sailboat owners were made aware and they would have taken more care, its still a harm caused / prevented due to extra precautions.
Reject D because even if sailboat owners were made aware and they would have taken more care, its still a harm caused / prevented due to extra precautions.
