Verbal questions from any Manhattan GMAT Computer Adaptive Test. Topic subject should be the first few words of your question.
Helios
 
 

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed

by Helios Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:00 am

Can anybody explain me the reason?

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system. Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of "papers." Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes. In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

The author assumes which of the following?
A The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries.
B The government will soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers "dissidents."
C Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are contrary to the traditions of American culture and law.
D The majority of Americans are not willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification.
E Americans should resist all government regulation of their lives.
Hanumayamma
 
 

CAT4 - Driver's License

by Hanumayamma Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:04 pm

Conclusion: Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American

A: "next presidential election " not even mentioned - eliminate it
B: "dissidents" not even discussed - eliminate it
C: "Blanket restrictions" - makes the argument too broad - eliminate it
D: Hold it
E: "all government regulation" too extreme

Answer: D
poojakrishnamurthy1
 
 

Re: Helios

by poojakrishnamurthy1 Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:39 am

Hi,

The rule for assumption is that if the assumption is reversed (also called "flip it"), the conclusion doesn't hold.

The argument basically says that since Americans don't use driving licenses for any purposes other than identification for driving, the usage of such licenses for other identification is "un-american". Ask yourself that what would the author have to assume for this to hold good? From the answer choices, flip all the choices and see whether this argument can be nullified. Lets see-

A says The next presidential election will be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries. The flipped version would say "The next presidential election will NOT be dishonest, as has happened in eastern European countries". Since this has no bearing on the argument, we can easily eliminate this one.

The flipped version of B says "The government will NOT soon start curtailing the activities of those it considers "dissidents."" Does this somehow affect the identification is 'un-American' argument? No. So eliminate this one too.

Flipped C : "Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are NOT contrary to the traditions of American culture and law." CORRECT. If Blanket restrictions on law abiding individuals were NOT contrary to the traditions of the American culture and law, the author couldn't have concluded that the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "un-american" and so the argument would NOT hold. So this is the answer!!

Flipped D: The majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. (In order to flip sentences that have a Not, remove the NOT). Even if the majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel without identification, it has no bearing whether the usage of driving licenses for identification purposes other than driving is "Un-American". So this CANNOT be the answer!

Flipped E: Americans should NOT resist all government regulation of their lives. No bearing, so eliminate this too.

My Answer: C
Tipu
 
 

by Tipu Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:10 am

I'll go for (C).

Because the author states in the passage that using Driver's license as means of identification is un-American which may lead to further restrictions.

(D) -> I dont thiink that the passage is concerned about American's will to travel. (Its about Restrictions on Freedom)
Helios
 
 

by Helios Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Thank you Pooja for detail explanation. Negation in Assumption type questions is certainly helpful. OA is C.
Hanumayamma
 
 

by Hanumayamma Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:35 pm

Thanks Pooja for you'r info!
Guest
 
 

by Guest Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:52 am

When I first chanced on this problem in MGCAT, i thought all were irrelavant, C too broad and D talking about the instance and not the argument at hand. But C atleast talks about what the author is trying to says. Almost duh dumb way to choose the ans compared to the 'flip it' explanation provided above!
goMba
 
 

Re: Helios

by goMba Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:15 pm

Nice tip Pooja, would surely help all of us.

I can pass on one more tip which i feel is good to know in solving assumption questions (and few other question types):

First always identify the main conclusion in the argument and then evaluate which choice best supports it. In this argument the main conclusion drawn is 'Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American' hence knowing this its easy to see why the (C) makes a lot of sense.
esledge
ManhattanGMAT Staff
 
Posts: 898
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:33 am
Location: St. Louis, MO
 

by esledge Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:33 pm

Thanks Pooja, you're making my job easy. I too find that the "flip" or "negation" technique for Assumption questions is the most reliable method. Nicely done.
Emily Sledge
Instructor
ManhattanGMAT
AbhishekD643
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:46 am
 

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed

by AbhishekD643 Tue Sep 16, 2014 3:34 am

Hi,
I read the question in this way.
Premise:
The Department of Homeland Security has proposed new federal requirements for driver’s licenses that would allow them to be used as part of a national identification system
Conclusion 1:
Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.”
Conclusion 2:
Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes.
Final Conclusion
In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable.

A&D are irrelevant. Elimnated.
C is an assumption for Conclusion 1.
D could be an assumption for Conclusion 2.

Because the author is assuming to arrive at each of the conclusions, we should look for assumptions in the first conclusion or the final conclusion?
Jov
Forum Guests
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 7:32 pm
 

Re: The Department of Homeland Security has proposed

by Jov Tue Oct 28, 2014 1:42 am

Hi Team,

I have a doubt related to conclusion.

Why "In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable." this can not be the final conclusion? While solving this question, i thought that this is a conclusion.It also clears therefore/Because test.

Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because......

If we allow these type of things (using.....), then in some time the other limits will be acceptable.

Another thing is meaning:
Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers."

I just did not understand the exact meaning (I am not from US .maybe that is the reason). What do you mean here by Equivalent of papers. Please explain the meaning of this. (maybe a bit background...what is legal or what is not)

Thanks a lot in advance for your help.