Critical Reasoning

Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver reeducation, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

If the editorialist's statement is true, they provide the most support for which one of the following?

(A) Drivers with a large number of demerit points who have been convicted of a serious driving related offense should be sent to jail.

(B) Driver re-education offers the best chance of making drivers with a large number of demerit points responsible drivers,

(C) Driver re-education is not a harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of a serious driving-related offense who has also accumulated a large number of demerit points.

(D) Driver re-education should not be recommended for those who have committed no serious driving-related offenses.

(E) Drivers with a large number of demerit points but not conviction for a serious driving-related offense should receive driver reeducation rather than jail.


My choice was "B" because the of one word in the last sentence. "Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with............."
the word "almost" leaves door for a doubt therefore I have chosen "B". But otherwise I would have gone with "A". Which is the correct answer to the question. Anyone agree with me on this? Any thoughts?
Thanks,

Hi everyone,

I always have hard time when I see the word " Almost" in the Critical Reasoning questions. I always get this wrong. when you say " almost always" my understanding is that it doesnt mean always.
For example you say I almost made it but you didnt. So If " almost always" is same as "always " why the heck we need almost always?
Any thoughts on this?
I appreciate your responses.
Thanks,

"Always almost" seems to be giving you hard time , dont get flown in the convoluted language , the test makers are bound to trick the test taker with the language .

it is always almost impossible to --- Here it means its always impossible . Dnt get confused .


Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver reeducation, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers

The argument says that serious offenders cannot be left unpunished and even if they are reeducated its impossible to make them responsible drivers === > The offenders should be in jail .

This point is made by option A . Hence IMO A.

Hope that helps.

Why Not C
Since Reckless drivers even after having to go through Driver Re-Education do not become responsible drivers, cant we infer that Driver Re-Education is not harsh enough a Punishment to deter the drivers from committing the offense again.

mundasingh123 wrote:Why Not C
Since Reckless drivers even after having to go through Driver Re-Education do not become responsible drivers, cant we infer that Driver Re-Education is not harsh enough a Punishment to deter the drivers from committing the offense again.

Well C just says that re education is not harsh enough , but if its not enough then what ? Then the offensers should remain in jail right ? So the final step is to put them in jail [inference], hence A .

Hope that helps.

The answer is A. This one is conditional reasoning.

J=sent to jail
DE=receive driver re-education
sub-D=drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of serious driving related offense

not J -> DE
not DE->J

DE-> R (likely to be made more responsible drivers)

not R-> not DE

not R -> not DE-> J

Hence, the pieces of the argument allow us to conclude that drivers with a large number of demerit points who have also been convicted of a serious driving related offense should go to jail. [/spoiler][/list][/list]

AIM GMAT wrote:

mundasingh123 wrote:Why Not C
Since Reckless drivers even after having to go through Driver Re-Education do not become responsible drivers, cant we infer that Driver Re-Education is not harsh enough a Punishment to deter the drivers from committing the offense again.

Well C just says that re education is not harsh enough , but if its not enough then what ? Then the offensers should remain in jail right ? So the final step is to put them in jail [inference], hence A .

Hope that helps.

I understand the final step may culminate in A , but this doesnt not mean that C is wrong right .
I find this very tricky.

Let us consider A and C both as contenders ,now among these choices which one woould you choose , the question asks that which of the following most support the argument .

I agree with your confusion , but just think of its as step by step process and evaluate the gaps .

Refer this post , its really nice :-

https://www.beatthegmat.com/except-quest ... tml#342665

AIM GMAT wrote:Let us consider A and C both as contenders ,now among these choices which one woould you choose , the question asks that which of the following most support the argument .

I agree with your confusion , but just think of its as step by step process and evaluate the gaps .

Refer this post , its really nice :-

https://www.beatthegmat.com/except-quest ... tml#342665

Hi Thanks for the Link but going by how David Talks in terms of steps and sequences , i am given to understand that C is closer to the stimulus than A which seems to be 1 step away .