The Department of Homeland Security has proposed

[Helios]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Hanumayamma]

Thanks Pooja for you'r info!

[Guest]

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]

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]

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.

[AbhishekD643]

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]

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.

[vidyasrinivasan1987]

Hi Ron,

I have the same query as Jov.Could you please help me with this.

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.

[ahmedb419]

An assumption question has two concepts that lead to the answer. The first is a question that we ask - Is the answer choice relevant to the argument? Second- on the contenders we apply the negation test.

Conclusion - Using DLs for identification is un-American and will lead to other limits on freedom down the road.

Moving to the choices;
A - Not important to the argument. In no way is any of the stimulus linked to presidential elections.
B - We are not worried about dissidents.
C - We are not talking about American culture. Still let us keep it some have pointed it as an answer choice. Keep.
D - it is relevant to the argument. Majority of Americans do not want to carry papers to move around. Keep.
E - "all" is too extreme a word, per the argument we know in this case Americans should oppose regulation we do not know about others. Discard.

Applying Negation on C and D:
C - Blanket restrictions on law-abiding individuals are not contrary to the traditions of American culture and law. If that is the case, well "others limits on freedom" should go down just fine with the Americans. It bolsters the argument.
D - The majority of Americans are willing to give up their right to travel and move about without identification. If this is the case the argument falls apart, if such a situation is acceptable to Americans than it is not Un-American and thus it is not a given that Ameericans will not fight back other encroachments on their freedom.

Hence pick D

[sahilmalhotra01]

Hi MGMAT Expert,

This question appeared in one the MGMAT CAT's.

I have a query similar to the one posted above by Jov and vidyasrinivasan1987.

Kindly help in identifying the conclusion for this argument.

I understand that conclusion for the argument is "In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. "

Here is my analysis of the argument

First Statement - Fact - 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 - The department has proposed a new requirements.

Second Statement - first half - Claim/Intermediate Conclusion - Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American - Using licenses for other purposes is un-American.

Second Statement - second half - supporting premise for intermediate conclusion - because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” - Since, it would require citizens to carry more documents.

Third Statement - Claim - Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes - This requirement would restrict the movement of citizens.

Fourth Statement - Conclusion - In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. - With the passage of time, this restriction could make other limitations acceptable.

I understand that argument assumed that this limitation, the restriction on movement of citizens, could impact the perception of citizens regarding other limitations.

However, as per the explanation the conclusion is the national identification system (“using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle”) is un-American

Kindly help in identifying the conclusion for the argument.

Thanks

Sahil Malhotra

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

Well done for your clear analysis, sahilmalhotra01. The big difficulty of this problem is deconstructing the argument and finding the right conclusion. Here's my commentary:

First Statement - Fact - 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 - The department has proposed a new requirements.

Yes, this is background / context for the argument. It's a fact that we can't argue with.

Second Statement - first half - Claim/Intermediate Conclusion - Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American - Using licenses for other purposes is un-American.

This is definitely a value judgment - it's giving an opinion - and is therefore a claim. You're right that it could be an intermediate conclusion; we need to read further to find out more.

Second Statement - second half - supporting premise for intermediate conclusion - because it would require U.S. citizens to carry the equivalent of “papers.” - Since, it would require citizens to carry more documents.

Notice the marker word 'because' to show a reason. However, our own logic comes into play here: why is it un-American to carry papers? We need some more evidence to support that claim.

Third Statement - Claim - Such a requirement would allow the government to restrict their movements and activities in the manner of totalitarian regimes - This requirement would restrict the movement of citizens.

And here we have the evidence: if carrying papers means that the government can restrict the movement and activities of its citizens, then it's un-American.

Fourth Statement - Conclusion - In time, this could make other limits on freedom acceptable. - With the passage of time, this restriction could make other limitations acceptable.

Here comes the problematic part: this looks like it could be the conclusion, but it's not. It actually just goes along with with the previous statement that carrying papers is bad news. It's here that I'd encourage you to deploy the 'therefore test' (CR strategy guide chapter 1) to see which statements support each other. You'll notice that the statement 'Using licenses for purposes not directly related to operating a motor vehicle is un-American' doesn't support any other claims in the argument, making it the main conclusion.

Sure, I can hear you say that using licences for ID purposes may lead to other restrictions of freedom, i.e. 'Use licences for ID, therefore less freedom.' But this isn't an argument, it's a causal link. Arguments are about claims and evidence, not about one phenomenon causing another. Take this example:

'Tom's shoes are wet, so I think it must be raining outside.' Here my conclusion is 'I think it must be raining outside', supported by the evidence that 'Tom's shoes are wet'. However, this is different from the causal link: 'It's raining, therefore Tom's shoes are wet.' Be careful not to mix up causes with evidence.