BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Taking Risks

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:31 am
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:730

Taking Risks

by nikhilgirdhar » Tue May 26, 2009 6:48 pm
Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue 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. As a result, they conclude that it should be each person’s decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the conclusion drawn above?
(A) Many new cars are built with seat belts that automatically fasten when someone sits in the front seat.
(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.
(C) Passengers in airplanes are required to wear seat belts during takeoffs and landings.
(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.
(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.

Answer is [spoiler][/spoiler]. Please help in explaining the answer.[/spoiler]
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:16 am
Location: San Francisco
Thanked: 14 times

by mbadrew » Tue May 26, 2009 8:26 pm
The author is arguing that, no harm is done to anyone but the person who doesn't want to wear a seat belt. Therefore, the decision to wear a seat belt should be left to the individual who's driving.

The question asks us to find a choice that weakens the arguement.

A--irrelevant to the topic

B--if people are paying higher insurance premiums because of the cost for the injuries of drivers that don't wear seat belts, then it does effect others and not just the driver. Freedom of choice is good, as long as the public doesn't have to pay for it. This is the best choice.

C--irrelevant to the topic.

D--the author is not contending this. However, the author is advocating the right to choose based on the assumption that the cost of risk is only limited to the risk taker.

E--the author is not contending this.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 5:31 am
Location: Bangalore
GMAT Score:730

by nikhilgirdhar » Wed May 27, 2009 3:07 am
Thanks for the explanation.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 am
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:710

by rahulg83 » Wed May 27, 2009 9:20 am
Initially i picked D
but on seeing mbadrew's explanation, B seems to be correct.
However,D says
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.

Doesn't automobile fatalities include both drivers and non-drivers (both passengers and non-passengers) ?? Does rate has any significance here?
Kindly someone explain.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 am

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 3:06 pm
Well I feel D is the answer
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1