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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATBootcamp Starts Sep 28
Chris Peckover, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE BOOTCAMP

Live Online Bootcamp Class with Top GMAT Expert Chris Peckover

15 live classes from Sep 28, 2026

Schedule
Mon to Fri · 7:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
Live classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Boost your GMAT score in less than one month in a live online class
  • 6 months access to TTP OnDemand video courses included
View bootcamp & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Taking Risks

Expert replies
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]
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

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.
Join the discussion

by nikhilgirdhar » Wed May 27, 2009 3:07 am
Thanks for the explanation.
Join the discussion

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.
Join the discussion

by nicolette » Sun May 15, 2016 3:06 pm
Well I feel D is the answer
Join the discussion