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

Redeem

Click it or Ticket

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2013 4:05 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:3 members

Click it or Ticket

by MBAsa » Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:55 pm
Can someone help me with this?

Last January, in an attempt to lower the number of traffic fatalities, the state legislature passed its "Click It or Ticket" law. Under the new law, motorists can be pulled over and ticketed for not wearing their seat belts, even if an additional driving infraction has not been committed. Lawyers and citizens' groups are already protesting the law, saying it unfairly infringes on the rights of the state's drivers. Law enforcement groups counter these claims by stating that the new regulations will save countless additional lives. Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage above?

"¢ Prior to the "Click It or Ticket" law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt.
"¢ The "Click It or Ticket" law violates current search and seizure laws.
"¢ Laws similar to "Click It or Ticket" have effectively reduced traffic fatalities in a number of states.
"¢ The previous seatbelt laws were ineffective in saving lives.
"¢ Law enforcement groups, rather than citizens groups, should determine how to best ensure the safety of motorists.

I don't understand why D can be incorrect
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1052
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 1:30 am
Thanked: 335 times
Followed by:98 members

by Patrick_GMATFix » Thu Jan 16, 2014 10:20 am
D is a pretty good answer but not as strong as A.

We're asked for an inference, which means the answer choice should be provable (or almost provable) from the information in the argument without any added assumption.

The argument tells us that "under the new law, motorists can be pulled over for not wearing their seat belts, EVEN IF AN ADDITIONAL INFRACTION HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED". This, along with the lawyers reaction that the law infringes rights, proves that prior to the law, motorists could not be stopped simply for not wearing a seat belt. Thus answer A is a good inference.

D is not as good as A because it is stated so strongly that it is impossible to prove using the argument alone. Specifically, D goes too far by calling previous laws "ineffective" rather than "insufficient". If the new law indeed saves additional lives, it does not mean that the previous laws weren't saving many lives on their own. For instance, there might have been a law requiring that all vehicles have a seat belt and this law might have led to many saved lives on its own.
  • Ask me about tutoring.
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Sat Jan 18, 2014 5:01 pm
Hi MBAsa,

GMAT questions are designed to have 1 correct answer and 4 incorrect answers. The incorrect answers are sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle, but the given information in the prompt is enough to figure out which answers are which.

Since this is an inference question, you'll need to spend a bit more time and energy on the details (since inference questions can sometimes be based on minor details that you might overlook).

The second-to-last sentence mentions that the new regulations will "save countless ADDITIONAL lives." Notice how this sentence is referring to some extra benefit, in excess of whatever existed before? Answer D tells us that the previous laws were "ineffective in saving lives." We don't know how effective the old laws were, we just know that the new law is supposed to save ADDITIONAL lives. Thus, D is not a proper inference.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1