Hi ,

This question is explained in OG.

The conlucsion of the argument is based on that 'people can do whatever they want as long as they don not harm others' . The correct answer choice should exploit this point that is if people are not wearing seat belts then it is harming others. With this thought in mind lets scan all the answer choice.

(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.

It does not weaken the conclusion. Eliminate it

(B) Automobile insurance rates for all automobile owners are higher because of the need to pay for the increased injuries or deaths of people not wearing seat belts.

Well read it carefully 'rates for all automobile... ' So you will notice that because some are not wearing seat belts it is causing the insurance rates of all people to go up. Thus harming others. This might be the correct answer but we will continue to scan.

(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.

Airplanes out of scope. ELIMINATE

(D) The rate of automobile fatalities in states that do not have mandatory seat-belt laws is greater than the rate of fatalities in states that do have such laws.
Rate of automobile fatalties..? Does that weaken the conclusion probably not...So eliminate it..

(E) In automobile accidents, a greater number of passengers who do not wear seat belts are injured than are passengers who do wear seat belts.

This says that people who do not wear seat belts are injured more than those who do not.This is in fact supporting the conclusion which says people can take risk as long as they don't hurt others. In this sentence not wearing seat belts is hurting only people who don't wear seat belts and not others. So cannot be sufficient to weaken it.

[/b]

Thanks.




Paresa.

i am sowree but how is option E wrong ?
stimulus says as long as others are not getting hurt people can continue not wearing the seat belt.

Option E says that there has been more deaths for people who are not wearing seat belts than those who do .

Which is contradicting the stimuls and thus weakening it - right ?

whats wrong in this thinking of mine for this question?

Option E says that there has been more deaths for people who are not wearing seat belts than those who do .



whats wrong in this thinking of mine for this question?

More no. of non seatbelted passengers are dying; others are not dying because of the nonseatbelted buggers.

My advice is "Wear your seat belt, it might save YOUR life"

hahhha
cool cool

In the first go I also went for E but on a second thought I reasoned with B,

In the stimulus, we need to agree with the premise that "in a free society people have the right to take risks as long as the people do not harm others as a result of taking the risks".

in option E says the passengers who are not wearing the seat-belts are dying at their own discretion (in which case we cannot do much about it) where as option B puts forward the effects that the others endure because of the few (who do not wear seat belts), this is unacceptable according to the premise stated above.

I thought the non seatbelt wearing passengers are all in the same car as the driver not wearing the seat belt. In such a scenario, e would be the ans right? Cos it actually talks about physical harm

aditya.j wrote:I thought the non seatbelt wearing passengers are all in the same car as the driver not wearing the seat belt. In such a scenario, e would be the ans right? Cos it actually talks about physical harm

Hi Aditya!

The opponents argue that people should be free to decide whether to wear seatbelts based on the rule that "you can do what you want as long as you don't harm OTHERS".

(e) doesn't weaken because the non-seatbelt wearers are only harming themselves - something the opponents argue they have the right to do.

(b), on the other hand, shows that when non-seatbelt wearing people get killed they're not only harming themselves - they're causing insurance rates to go up for ALL auto owners.

Note that "harm" isn't restricted to physical harm; you should never impose your own restrictions on an argument - we have to be on the lookout for any type of harm.

Stuart has this one quite right when he says

Note that "harm" isn't restricted to physical harm; you should never impose your own restrictions on an argument - we have to be on the lookout for any type of harm.

I just want to remind everyone that you have to focus on what is actually said in the conclusion and in the evidence -- every word matters.

It is like a math problem. If the problem said that you are to multiply 100 * 5 and then divide by 2, you are not free to decide that you should divide by 3 instead. Why should we be free to insert other words or ideas in a critical reasoning stimulus?

Background information is not important to focus on (just understand it), but the conclusion and the evidence must receive your word-for-word attention. Focus is the key to the verbal section!