Test by Bikram | Mock GATE | Test 1 | Question: 60

Question

Read the following passage carefully, and answer the question that follows:
People who oppose the law that makes it mandatory for two wheeler riders to wear helmets argue that in a democracy, people have the right to take risks as long as they don't harm others as a result of taking risks. They say that it should be each person's decision whether or not to wear a helmet.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument above?

• A. Many new bikes that are available now are skid-resistant.
• B. Insurance rates are higher because of the need to pay for the injuries or death of people not wearing helmets.
• C. The rate of accidents in states with mandatory helmet laws is lower than in states with no laws.
• D. A great number of people die in road accidents even otherwise.

Comments

1. It seems everyone agreed to say answer is C, but is there any verified source which says answer is C?
2. It has been  mentioned several times that B is not even relevant, to weaken the argument.
3. I happened to use following reasoning, if there is any flaw please let me know…

(The argument is by $\rightarrow$) People who oppose the law . . . ,

 . . .argue that ( the argument is $\rightarrow$) in a democracy, people have the right to take risks as long as they don't harm others as a result of taking risks.

Now to weaken their argument we need to show that by taking risk of not wearing helmet they results into harming other people in democracy ( not themselves by dying but others somehow )

People don’t wear helmet $\rightarrow $ they die or get injured $\rightarrow$ Insurance companies raise the insurance rate to compensate for money they need to pay for these peoples $\rightarrow$ Other people in democracy has to pay extra cost for insurance.

By transitivity of implication 

People don’t wear helmet $\rightarrow $ Other people in democracy has to pay extra cost for insurance.

In this way People taking risk do result in harming other people , hence their argument that “ people have the right to take risks as long as they don't harm others as a result of taking risks “ has been weakened.

---

I agree with you. It does weaken the arguement. But in the question, ‘most’ is used. And option ‘c’ clearly weakens the arguement by directly talking about physical injuries/deaths ( more harm to other people) rather than option b which talks about financial harm ( which is a harm indeed but less harmful than death/ physical brutal injury).

---

@Bikram sir, please check the answer of @Zack Fair, I had the same reasoning for option B

Answer 1

The given passage is having a argument to not support helmet law.

Now, this question says,

Which of the following, if true, most weaken the argument above?  

while,

option C says , The rate of accidents in states with mandatory helmet laws is lower than in states with no laws. 

- it deals with support for helmet law.  which is opposite with the essence of the passage.

But that option  B   deals with  Insurance rates, which have no connection with the argument of the passage.

Same for option A and option D, these two also have no relation with given argument in passage .

Comments

The argument is for not having helmet rule and option C shows a demand for helmet rule.

---

yes, because Question says which option most weaken the argument above?

it is option C .

Answer 2

I think it should be C

Comments

Weaken the choice means  not any strong choice .

option C supports this .

---

C is correct.

---

@thor 

yes C is correct .

u may see this discussion

https://www.facebook.com/groups/core.cs/permalink/1405570142808568/