GMAT Exam > GMAT Questions > Letter to the editor: I have never seen such ...
Start Learning for Free
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.
The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argument
- a)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizing
- b)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalities
- c)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive faster
- d)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also rising
- e)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpoint
Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and dist...
This stimulus introduces a letter to the editor complaining of the reasoning in a recent article on
speed limits. In that article, it was noted that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle fatality
rates. But the letter writer concludes that it will not be that way for long, based on the fact that
vehicle-related fatalities are increasing in areas with lower speed limits.
speed limits. In that article, it was noted that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle fatality
rates. But the letter writer concludes that it will not be that way for long, based on the fact that
vehicle-related fatalities are increasing in areas with lower speed limits.
The question stem asks why the reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed. Whenever we
see simple numbers comparisons, we should be wary of the author’s tendency to draw unwarranted
conclusions. The problem here is that a simple increase in the number of vehicle related fatalities
does not provide sufficient evidence to logically draw any conclusions about whether these fatalities
are attributable to the lower speed limits. If we are seeking to determine whether or not safety is
increased by lower speed limits, a more relevant comparison would be between the respective
fatalities of high vs. low speed limit areas.
see simple numbers comparisons, we should be wary of the author’s tendency to draw unwarranted
conclusions. The problem here is that a simple increase in the number of vehicle related fatalities
does not provide sufficient evidence to logically draw any conclusions about whether these fatalities
are attributable to the lower speed limits. If we are seeking to determine whether or not safety is
increased by lower speed limits, a more relevant comparison would be between the respective
fatalities of high vs. low speed limit areas.
(A): Reliance upon empirical evidence cited in the original article is not a fl aw in the letter writer’s argument—it is quite common on the LSAT to see two different viewpoints or interpretations based on the exact same evidence. The author of the letter is not refuting the evidence provided by the original report, but rather the interpretation of that evidence, so this answer choice is incorrect.
(B): The term “often” is extremely vague, and provides no insight into the relative likelihood of fatalities at high speeds vs. low speeds. The reason the conclusion in the stimulus is fl awed is that it rests on a shaky premise, not that it fails to consider all outside evidence. This answer choice does not provide an effective attack on the stimulus’ reasoning.
(C): The fact that some drivers don’t want to drive any faster plays no role in the editorialist’s argument, since an increased speed limit would not require anyone to drive faster. The fact that some don’t wish to drive faster is irrelevant, and certainly does not represent a fl aw in the author’s reasoning, so this answer choice should be eliminated.
(D): This is the correct answer choice. If vehicle fatality rates are increasing everywhere, not just in the low speed limit areas, then we cannot logically draw any justifiable conclusions about the increase in fatality rates that has taken place in the low speed limit areas, and raising the speed limit based on these figures would not necessarily be advisable.
(E): The letter writer does provide some evidence (though questionable) against the
opposing viewpoint—the evidence that the vehicle fatality rate is increasing in the low speed limit
areas. This evidence may be weak, but the claim is presented, so this answer choice is inaccurate and
incorrect.
opposing viewpoint—the evidence that the vehicle fatality rate is increasing in the low speed limit
areas. This evidence may be weak, but the claim is presented, so this answer choice is inaccurate and
incorrect.
Attention GMAT Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed GMAT study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in GMAT.
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Similar GMAT Doubts
Top Courses for GMATView all
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2024 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Letter to the editor: I have never seen such flawed reasoning and distorted evidence as that which you tried to pass off as a balanced study in the article “Speed Limits, Fatalities, and Public Policy.” The article states that areas with lower speed limits had lower vehicle-related fatality rates than other areas. However, that will not be true for long, since vehicle-related fatality rates are rising in the areas with lower speed limits. So the evidence actually supports the view that speed limits should be increased.The reasoning in the letter writer’s argument is flawed because the argumenta)bases its conclusion on findings from the same article that it is criticizingb)fails to consider the possibility that automobile accidents that occur at high speeds often result in fatalitiesc)fails to consider the possibility that not everyone wants to drive fasterd)fails to consider the possibility that the vehiclerelated fatality rates in other areas are also risinge)does not present any claims as evidence against the opposing viewpointCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for GMAT exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
Follow Us
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup