Opponents of laws that require automobile drivers and passengers to wear seat belts argue that in a free society people...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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 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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts with opponents presenting a general principle about individual freedom and risk-taking, then applies this principle specifically to seat belt laws to reach their conclusion.
Main Conclusion:
It should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a seat belt.
Logical Structure:
The opponents use a conditional premise (people can take risks IF they don't harm others) to support their conclusion that seat belt wearing should be a personal choice. The key assumption is that not wearing seat belts only affects the individual, not others.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that reduces belief in the conclusion that seat belt decisions should be left to individuals
Precision of Claims
The argument makes a conditional claim about individual rights (people can take risks IF they don't harm others) and concludes with an absolute claim about personal choice (each person should decide about seat belts)
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to attack the key assumption that not wearing seat belts only affects the individual making that choice. If we can show that choosing not to wear seat belts actually DOES harm others, then the opponents' own principle (that people shouldn't take risks that harm others) would contradict their conclusion
This choice discusses automatic seat belts in new cars, but this doesn't address whether the decision should be personal or mandatory. Even if cars have automatic seat belts, the fundamental question about whether laws should require seat belt use remains unaffected. This doesn't weaken the opponents' argument about individual choice.
This directly weakens the argument by showing that individual decisions about seat belts DO harm others financially. When people choose not to wear seat belts and get more severely injured, insurance companies pay higher claims, which leads to higher rates for everyone. This contradicts the opponents' own principle that people should be free to take risks 'as long as they don't harm others.' Since not wearing seat belts does harm others (through higher insurance costs), their conclusion that it should be a personal choice is weakened.
The fact that airplane passengers must wear seat belts doesn't weaken the argument about automobile seat belt laws. The opponents could easily argue that airplane and automobile situations are different, or that airplane seat belt laws are also wrong. This doesn't address whether automobile seat belt choices harm others.
While this shows that mandatory seat belt laws reduce fatalities, it doesn't directly challenge the opponents' reasoning. The opponents aren't arguing that seat belts don't save lives - they're arguing that the decision should be personal as long as it doesn't harm others. This choice doesn't show that individual choices about seat belts harm other people.
Similar to choice D, this confirms that seat belts reduce injuries to the individuals wearing them, but doesn't show that personal seat belt decisions harm others. The opponents already acknowledge that not wearing seat belts increases personal risk - their point is that people should be free to take personal risks that don't affect others.