CR - Weaken general principle

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

CR - Weaken general principle

by karthikpandian19 » Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:22 pm
Contrary to popular belief, there is no economic benefit from routine auto safety inspections. While routine safety inspections can avert future auto maintenance expenses by preventing accidents and major repairs, recent studies show that the money thus saved only accounts for slightly less than half of the inspections' costs.

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?


(A) The auto maintenance costs incurred from accidents are not nearly as high as the medical and other types of expenses also incurred.

(B) The cost, per vehicle, of routine safety inspections would not change regardless of the scale on which they were implemented.

(C) When dealing with issues of safety, economic issues should ideally not be a primary concern.

(D) Highly skilled mechanics are necessary to effectively prevent future accidents and major repairs, and such mechanics are extremely expensive.

(E) Similar inspections for buses, trains, and other forms of transportation have proven cost effective in the long term
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 341
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:59 pm
Thanked: 17 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:720

by ice_rush » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:40 am
I'd go with A here. what's the OA?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 435
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 7:27 am
Thanked: 48 times
Followed by:16 members

by alex.gellatly » Fri Jul 13, 2012 8:14 pm
karthikpandian19 wrote:Contrary to popular belief, there is no economic benefit from routine auto safety inspections. While routine safety inspections can avert future auto maintenance expenses by preventing accidents and major repairs, recent studies show that the money thus saved only accounts for slightly less than half of the inspections' costs.

Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the conclusion above?


(A) The auto maintenance costs incurred from accidents are not nearly as high as the medical and other types of expenses also incurred. This attacks the argument directly. The argument says there is not economic benefit. This clearly states that there is an economic benefit.

(B) The cost, per vehicle, of routine safety inspections would not change regardless of the scale on which they were implemented. This is irrelevant to conclusion

(C) When dealing with issues of safety, economic issues should ideally not be a primary concern. This is irrelevant to conclusion

(D) Highly skilled mechanics are necessary to effectively prevent future accidents and major repairs, and such mechanics are extremely expensive. This actually strengthens the argument

(E) Similar inspections for buses, trains, and other forms of transportation have proven cost effective in the long term This is irrelevant to conclusion


The only applicable answer choice is thus A. Does this help?

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:08 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:4 members

by confuse mind » Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:37 pm
IMO - A

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:04 pm
Thanked: 165 times
Followed by:70 members

by karthikpandian19 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:06 am
OA is A
Regards,
Karthik
The source of the questions that i post from JUNE 2013 is from KNEWTON

---If you find my post useful, click "Thank" :) :)---
---Never stop until cracking GMAT---