Outlawing the possession of handguns will never reduce the number of deaths and injuries that are the result of such weapons. People know that guns are effective and will find new, although illegal, ways to get them. No laws restricting the sale and ownership of handguns will prevent those who want them from having them.

Which of the following would best strengthen the above argument?

Answer Choices

Correct answer marked below

A recent ban on the possession of concealed weapons other than handguns has resulted in significantly lower rates of death and injury related to these weapons.

In light of certain rights guaranteed by the Constitution, legislation legal bans on the possession of handguns will not be easy.

Often, outlawing a product or commodity tends to increase the desire to possess that product and demand actually rises.

Correct

Many advocates of gun control believe that it is the weapon and not the possessor of the weapon that is responsible for the violence associated with handguns.

Legislating a ban on only those handguns that are statistically more often involved in injury and death should be sufficient to temper the demand.

See the full step-by-step explanation

You can see the correct answer above. Sign in for free to unlock the complete worked solution.

Track your performance and improve

Get detailed analytics, unlock full explanations, and move up difficulty tiers as you practice.

Start for free Sign in

Explanation

Unlock the full explanation

Create a free account to reveal the correct answer, see the step-by-step explanation, and start tracking your GMAT progress.

Create free account Sign in

Comments

NeelamJul 25

thanks, this one was pretty straightforward. C directly supports the idea that banning guns won't reduce deaths because demand would actually rise.

PragunAug 8

Yeah, but could A also strengthen? It shows a ban on other weapons worked, so maybe a handgun ban would too?

KrishnaJun 16

I picked B at first because it talks about how hard it is to ban handguns, but then I realized the argument is about effectiveness, not feasibility. C is clearly better.

SehejSep 30

Is anyone else confused by the wording in C? 'demand actually rises' seems like a strong claim, but it does support the idea that people will still want guns.

Aviraljust now

Exactly. If demand rises after a ban, then more people might seek guns illegally, which aligns with the argument that bans won't reduce deaths.

VedikaSep 30

This was easy. C is the only one that strengthens the argument that outlawing handguns won't reduce deaths.

What this question tests

What it tests

Whether you can identify the option that most bolsters an argument's conclusion.

Common trap

Choosing an option that is consistent with the argument but adds no new support, or that shifts the topic.