speed limit

Expert replies

garima99: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 217; Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 8 times

by garima99 » Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:23 pm

Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Thu Jul 21, 2011 8:23 pm

dinaroneo: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 67; Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:34 am; Location: india; Thanked: 1 times

by dinaroneo » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:49 am

IMO E

BlindVision: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 253; Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:39 pmFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 8 times

by BlindVision » Fri Jul 22, 2011 8:34 am

garima99 wrote:Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

Life is a Test

GAMATO: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 26; Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:01 am

by GAMATO » Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:54 am

IMO D

garima99 wrote:Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

Baand: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 13; Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:51 am

by Baand » Fri Jul 22, 2011 5:51 pm

garima99 wrote:Reducing speed limits neither saves lives nor protects the environment. This is
because the more slowly a car is driven, the more time it spends on the road spewing exhaust into the air and running the risk of colliding with other vehicles.
The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument
(A) neglects the fact that some motorists completely ignore speed limits.
(B) Ignore the possibility of benefits from lowering speed limits other than environmental and safety benefits.
(C) Fails to consider that if speed limits are reduced, increased driving times will increase the number of cars on the road at any given time.
(D) Presumes, without providing justification, that total emissions for a given automobile trip are determined primarily by the amount of time the trip takes
(E) Presumes, without providing justification, that drivers run a significant risk of collision only if they spend a lot of time on the road.

E seems to be attractive but the author nowhere suggest that "only if they spend a lot of time on the road", so Eliminate E.D considers the issue properly,so IMO "D".

gmatblood: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 489; Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:10 amFollowed by: 5 members; Thanked: 28 times

by gmatblood » Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:19 pm

Should be D, can an expert comment on this CR!

GMAT Course Reviews

563 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (563 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review