A City police department plans to set up a special task

Question

A City police department plans to set up a special task force to
identify and prosecute drunk drivers. A City council member objects,
claiming that the expense of putting together the task force is not
justified because less than one out of ten thousand drivers on the
street on a given night are driving while intoxicated.

Which of the following , if true , most weakens the argument made by
the objecting council member?

a. Similar task forces in other cities have not brought about
increases in convictions for drunken driving.
b. More than half of the auto accidents in the city are caused by
drunken drivers.
c. Most drunken drivers are identified as such only after they have
already caused an accident.
d. Strong penalties for drunken driving are already written into
state laws.
e. Putting together the special task force will require a 10%
increase in the police department's budget.

monarc · Answer

was debating between B and C. 

B says that more than half of the accident are done by drunk drivers.

C says that We know that they are drunk ONLY after they have already caused the accident.

C Sounds better doesn't it??? anybody explain??

Paul · Answer

C is the opposite of what we are looking for and actually strengthen the argument of the objecting council member. If we know only after the accident that drivers are drunk, then what is the use of setting up a task force to identify them (after the accident is perpetrated)?

batliwala · Answer

yes B again.

The correct response is B . The councilman's objection is based on
the fact that very few of the drivers in the city drive while
intoxicated. However, if the majority of the auto accidents inthe
city are caused by drunk drivers, as described in choice B, then the
city's most effective strategy for reducing auto accidents is to
combat drunk driving. Choices A and E would not weaken the council
member's argument. Choice C would be an argument in favor of the task
force, but does not establish, as choice B does, that getting drunk
drivers off the streets would actually produce a measurable benefit.
Choice D is irrelevant.


rgds,
bolti as Kpadma calls me

anandnk · Answer

This question is debatable. There are two weak points in the statement given by the objecting council. 

How do we refute the city council's claim. Either show that the data it is providing as evidence is false or the consequence of the truthfullness of that data is pretty serious.

B says majority of the accidents caused are by drunk drivers. What if there were only 10 accidents in a year.

C says the numbers provided by the city council about no of drunk drivers is wrong.

One can always come out and say even if those 10 accidents can be stopped then it is worth the try.

I liked C better.

I have seen a similar Q in Kaplan about diceases caused pollution and the answer is similar to one provided by C where the data provided as evidence is invalidated

A City police department plans to set up a special task

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