Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 22 Aug 2014, 19:50

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
2 KUDOS received
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 106 [2] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 00:38
2
This post received
KUDOS
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

55% (02:00) correct 45% (02:25) wrong based on 198 sessions
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 909
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Followers: 15

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 18

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 04:41
Tricky.
I go with D.
We limit our scope to drivers+front seat passengers, only D in a way strengthens this conclusion by saying more than 50% in the survey were not wearing => 80% injured was a big amount.
What is OA? I may be wrong.. this is interesting.
ritula wrote:
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 10
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 05:54
i think ans is C which states
c)More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.

What if the majority of the people injured are sitting in the rear seat . making seat belts mandatory for front seat passengers wont help them .

D ) is explicitly mentioned in the statement, so it doesnt add any further support to the argument.
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 652
Followers: 7

Kudos [?]: 187 [0], given: 6

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 10:55
IMO A. I was confused between A and D but finally opted A.

ritula wrote:
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
-- OOS
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
-- OOS
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
-- OOS


We have to find out why argument believes "wearing seat belts, ... can greatly reduce . risk"? Of course some proof is required to stand this point.
A) see the blue part: were wearing - this does validate the claim
D) were not wearing - this does not validate the claim [extra line of assumption is precarious on GMAT]
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 14:40
A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
-- OOS
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
-- OOS
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
-- Right answer choice
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
-- True, but doesn't add any support to the statement to draw conclusion.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
-- OOS
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 372
Location: PDX
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 66 [0], given: 24

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 15:11
Premise: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents

Conclusion: By wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

Answer is asking for an additional premise to strengthen the conclusion:

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. - Perfect. Of all the people in the survey 80% of those injured didn't wear seat belts, 20% wore seat belts - which strengthens the conclusion
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. - Always has no relevance, the argument talks about accidental impact.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. - Doesn't add anything to strengthen the conclusion
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. Nothing to support or strengthen the conclusion
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Out of Scope
_________________

In the land of the night, the chariot of the sun is drawn by the grateful dead

VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1436
Followers: 33

Kudos [?]: 214 [0], given: 1

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 30 Mar 2009, 18:13
ritula wrote:
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.

If 80% are NOT wearing SB, How can more than 20% wear SB? Wrong.

(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.

Expands scope to all drivers. Wrong


(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.

Premise gives a statistic and conclusion makes a judgment on how severity of injuries can be reduced. So seems to connect them.


(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.

Isnt this a restatement or possibly contradiction of the premise. more than 50% means could be <=80% or more than 80%

(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.

If they dont involve any serious injury at all, belts do not help any thing.



Assumption Q based on connect the premise and conclusion or fill the logical gap.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1300
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 106 [0], given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 31 Mar 2009, 22:32
OA is A
5 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 111
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 141 [5] , given: 0

GMAT Tests User
Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 05 Apr 2009, 09:03
5
This post received
KUDOS
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

Explanation:
--------------------
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. ---> We know from the excerpt that
Drivers + Front-Seat Passengers = Severely Injured (20% Wearing Seat-Belts + 80% Not Wearing Seat-Belts) + Not Severely Injured (No Information)

Now, what if more than 80% of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were NOT wearing seat-belts? Using this scenario, we can say that wearing seat-belts will NOT reduce the risk of being severely injured. So the conclusion cannot be properly drawn.

Since we have to show that author's conclusion was properly drawn, we have to show that the scenario I cited above was not possible. To make the above scenario impossible, we can say that more than 80% (actually it should be 100% otherwise these people will come under the category of ‘severely injured’ ones) of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were wearing seat-belts. Also, excerpt mentions that 20% people from the severely injured category were wearing seat-belts.

So, if we add people (who were wearing seat-belts) from both the categories (severely injured & not severely injured), we'll arrive at the assumption stated in this option.

(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. ---> Mentions about car. Irrelevant.

(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. ---> Will not help us in any way to prove that the conclusion was properly drawn.

(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. ---> This cannot be the assumption in order to arrive at the author’s conclusion.

(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury. ---> Irrelevant.
--------------------

Hope that helps.


Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

Accident Survey [#permalink] New post 17 Aug 2009, 08:25
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.

Pls Attach Explanation With your Ans.
3 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [3] , given: 0

Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 02 Sep 2009, 05:41
3
This post received
KUDOS
A is correct.
Lets say there were 100 cases of "serious" accident. Then 80 of those cases were not wearing seat-belts according to the author. But 20 were. So the author assumes that wearing seat-belts can prevent serious accidents. How can that be? There are 20 cases of serious accident that were wearing seat belts! Then how can the author claim that seat-belts can prevent serious accidents? The only way this can happen is if more than 20 people in the auto-accident survey were wearing seat belts and were not seriously hurt. Choice A provides us with that number- it says more than 20% of ALL accident cases were wearing seat-belts at the time of the accident. Now 20% of ALL cases has to be > 20% of serious cases since "serious cases" is a sub-group of all cases.
Hence answer A.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: accidents [#permalink] New post 31 Jul 2010, 04:57
Though A is not a straight forward choice to this question, this is the most appropriate choice.

since the answer must support the conclusion. negating the correct choice must negate the conclusion.

C and E are out of scope. negating D doesn't have any affect on conclusion.
Since B dictates a general truth and doesn't comment about the representative sample in the survey, choice B can be ignored.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 268
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19
GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 22

GMAT Tests User
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2012, 02:19
Guys don't you think B can also be correct
_________________

The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 12 Mar 2012
Posts: 370
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 99 [0], given: 31

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2012, 04:38
good question indeed
took me time to figure out whats going with the options
_________________

Practice Practice and practice...!!

If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS
If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: I will not stop until i realise my goal which is my dream too
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 235
Schools: Johnson '15
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 16

GMAT Tests User
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 22 Mar 2012, 08:02
i go with D too...for the same reasons mentioned by folks above....

because prose says 80% of them who had not worn seat belts were severly injured...so more than 50% were not wearing the set belts support it... isnt it?
_________________

Regards,
Harsha

Note: Give me kudos if my approach is right , else help me understand where i am missing.. I want to bell the GMAT Cat ;)

Satyameva Jayate - Truth alone triumphs

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 174
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 32 [0], given: 24

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 23 Mar 2012, 02:17
A over B because a relates directly to the participants of the survey. Wins over B because survey is not necessarily a representative sample of dole county. (for example: survey could have lower proportion of drivers and front seat passengers who war seat belts)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 336
Location: India
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 33

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 23 Jun 2013, 02:59
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?
Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
GMAT Pill Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 1534
Location: New York, NY
Followers: 286

Kudos [?]: 636 [4] , given: 6

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 24 Jun 2013, 11:24
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
vibhav wrote:
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?


This question is quite confusing - it's likely that the wording would be rephrased on the real exam. It's not clearly presented that there are other groups other than the "severely injured" group. What is the source?

The key point here is in how the information is provided and structured. The survey is for those who got into accident. Now, most readers make the incorrect connection between 'accident' and 'severely injured'. They think that 80% of people got into accident and were seriously injured, the remaining 20% did not get into accident and were safe.

That's incorrect.

The way the information is provided, they are saying that of those that are severely injured (we don't know what portion of the accidents resulted in SEVERE injury but let's say 60% for example or 60 people out of 100) -- 80% did not wear seat belts.

That means out of 60 seriously injured people (out of 100 total), 80% of these 60 did not wear seat belts. Or, 48 did not wear seat belts.

What's important to note is that 20% of these 60 (or 12 people) DID wear a seat belt and still got seriously injured.

So to summarize, 60 people were seriously injured (48 did not wear a seat belt while 12 did). The remaining 40 were more mildly injured and we have no data as to who wore or did not wear seat belts.

The argument is that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of SERIOUS injury. However, we know that 12 people wore a seatbelt and still got seriously injured. How do we know that wearing seat belt can reduce the risk?

Well, it must be the case that people wearing a seatbelt tended to have more mild injuries (part of the 40-person group, not the 60-person serious injury group).

So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt


...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?


If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group.
_________________


... and more


Image What's Inside GMAT Pill?

Zeke Lee, GMAT Pill Study Method (Study Less. Score More.)


GMAT Pill Reviews | GMAT PILL Free Practice Test

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 150
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 41

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 03 Jul 2013, 07:58
GMATPill wrote:
vibhav wrote:
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?


This question is quite confusing - it's likely that the wording would be rephrased on the real exam. It's not clearly presented that there are other groups other than the "severely injured" group. What is the source?

The key point here is in how the information is provided and structured. The survey is for those who got into accident. Now, most readers make the incorrect connection between 'accident' and 'severely injured'. They think that 80% of people got into accident and were seriously injured, the remaining 20% did not get into accident and were safe.

That's incorrect.

The way the information is provided, they are saying that of those that are severely injured (we don't know what portion of the accidents resulted in SEVERE injury but let's say 60% for example or 60 people out of 100) -- 80% did not wear seat belts.

That means out of 60 seriously injured people (out of 100 total), 80% of these 60 did not wear seat belts. Or, 48 did not wear seat belts.

What's important to note is that 20% of these 60 (or 12 people) DID wear a seat belt and still got seriously injured.

So to summarize, 60 people were seriously injured (48 did not wear a seat belt while 12 did). The remaining 40 were more mildly injured and we have no data as to who wore or did not wear seat belts.

The argument is that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of SERIOUS injury. However, we know that 12 people wore a seatbelt and still got seriously injured. How do we know that wearing seat belt can reduce the risk?

Well, it must be the case that people wearing a seatbelt tended to have more mild injuries (part of the 40-person group, not the 60-person serious injury group).

So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt


...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?


If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group.


Hi,

Wonderful explanation...KUDIO's for that... I could not understand the below part...

{
So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt

...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?

If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group. }

Could you throw some light on this..!!!!
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Expert Post
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 627
Followers: 41

Kudos [?]: 550 [0], given: 135

Premium Member
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] New post 03 Jul 2013, 09:59
Expert's post
ritula wrote:
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.

The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?

(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.


A more numeric approach:
The conclusion of the arguement is that by wearing seat-belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can reduce the risk of being .....
Let's assume that out of all the people surveyed,say x, 100 were severly injured. So the remaining were not severly injured(Mild injury,no injury,etc).Now, out of these 100 people, 80 were not wearing seat belts at the time of accident. Thus, 20 were wearing seat belts and still got serious injuries. Now, to re-inforce/buttress the fact that wearing seat-belt greatly reduces the risk of being severly injured[and hence the conclusion of the arguement], the author would need support from the group of people who didn't suffer serious injury because they were wearing seat-belts.
Now, if option A is true, then that means that: # of people wearing seat belts >\frac{x}{5} --> # of people wearing seat belts > 20[as x>100 is inherently understood]. This directly means that atleast some of the people who are from the not serious injuries group must have worn seat-belts, thus cementing the conclusion.

Also, as per Option D, we would have the condition : # of people not wearing seat belts >\frac{x}{2}. Just as above, we have x>100. Thus, # of people not wearing seat belts >50. However, we anyways know that the # of people not wearing seat belts is atleast 80. Thus, this option doesn't really add anything conclusive to cement the conclusion.
_________________

All that is equal and not-Deep Dive In-equality

Hit and Trial for Integral Solutions

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County   [#permalink] 03 Jul 2013, 09:59
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County arjsingh1976 10 30 Oct 2006, 04:31
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County mahesh004 1 19 Nov 2005, 09:06
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County shweta_dalmia 16 13 Aug 2005, 09:26
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County cybera 5 15 Jul 2005, 20:29
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County okdongdong 9 04 Jul 2005, 04:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.