Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 19:40 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 19:40

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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 138
Own Kudos [?]: 1189 [37]
Given Kudos: 172
GPA: 3.46
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 141
Own Kudos [?]: 74 [0]
Given Kudos: 46
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [3]
Given Kudos: 29
Send PM
SVP
SVP
Joined: 06 Nov 2014
Posts: 1798
Own Kudos [?]: 1368 [3]
Given Kudos: 23
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
1
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

The way to approach this would be to formulate a question, then eliminate the answer choices that provide a reasonable answer to your question. The question is, "Why haven't traffic fatalities decreased in the passed two years although the seat belt law should decrease fatalities (according to the safety report)?"
(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph). Greater speed limits could increase or maintain the number of fatal accidents
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not. The inclusion of pedestrian fatalities could counter a decrease in seat belt wearing driver fatalities
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic. More traffic means more accidents.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them, If drivers aren't wearing seat belts, the number of fatalities could remain the same
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts. This is a separate group of people. We are looking at all drivers not those who were killed in car accidents.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Aug 2013
Posts: 46
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]
Given Kudos: 17
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
i think this is a 700 level question because for a moment i was stuck between A, C and E for the fact that i had not read the question stem and conclusion correctly; my bad. :(. Rereading the question clicked me that C is out anyways, now remain A and E. I was not sure about A initially but then this is how i eliminated A.
A did not give a clear picture or it left the argument dangling. if the speed limit was increased by 15 kph, it was quite prossible that initially the speed limit was lets say 15 kph, and revising the speed makes it 30kph. Now 30 kph is not a great speed limit. But is was also possible that the initial speed limit was lets say 50 kph, after revision it became 65 kph(which is pretty fast). now that left an ambiguity in the option, hence eliminated. best answer E.

kudos if you like.
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 451
Own Kudos [?]: 363 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
Hi GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo
need help to understand option E ...
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2015
Posts: 133
Own Kudos [?]: 57 [0]
Given Kudos: 121
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V29
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
What the question stem is actually asking ??
Very convoluted language.
Can anyone pls explain what the question really wants.. [DISAPPOINTED BUT RELIEVED FACE]

Sent from my Lenovo TAB S8-50LC using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 552
Own Kudos [?]: 436 [0]
Given Kudos: 123
Location: India
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain ciry seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?

(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,


(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.This only says that why many people died but this does not define why the rate increased while it decreased in other city. while the rest of the choice make sense in expalining why the rates increased the question asks about the choice which does not expalain.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [3]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
3
Kudos
Quote:
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?


For this question we are trying to find the answer which does not provide a reason why THIS city would have not seen the decrease in deaths that the average city did. Most of these answers provide reasons why the deaths would increase, thus counteracting the expected decrease from the law.

(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph). Higher speeds would increase deaths.
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not. A larger scope of fatalities would increase the number counted.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic. More traffic=more deaths
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them. If the law didn't change, neither would the deaths.

(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts. The question asks why THIS city is different from the average city. This answer does not explain why this city maintained the statistic. It explains that the law didn't work, but not why.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 05 Dec 2014
Posts: 181
Own Kudos [?]: 59 [0]
Given Kudos: 289
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.54
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
for E - since most of the people died were found not wearing seatbelts- this expalins that law si not properly followed and that's why the number of deaths remained the same. Please help me to understand where am i lacking?
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [1]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V45
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
1
Kudos
sunny91 wrote:
for E - since most of the people died were found not wearing seatbelts- this expalins that law si not properly followed and that's why the number of deaths remained the same. Please help me to understand where am i lacking?


If most of the people who died were not wearing seatbelts, it proves the law's validity. It does not prove why the law did not help at all. It does not say that everyone is not wearing seatbelts, just those who died.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6923
Own Kudos [?]: 63674 [2]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
EwokBanshee wrote:
sunny91 wrote:
for E - since most of the people died were found not wearing seatbelts- this expalins that law si not properly followed and that's why the number of deaths remained the same. Please help me to understand where am i lacking?


If most of the people who died were not wearing seatbelts, it proves the law's validity. It does not prove why the law did not help at all. It does not say that everyone is not wearing seatbelts, just those who died.

Thanks for the explanations!

The discrepancy we are trying to explain is that, in a city that passed seat belts laws two years ago, the number of traffic deaths per year has NOT changed even though, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. Why did the laws have no effect in this city even though, on average, such laws lead to a 7 percent decline in traffic deaths?

Quote:
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.


Choice (E) might explain why traffic fatalities would likely decline if more people wore seatbelts. However, why did the number of traffic deaths in this city remain the same after passing seat belt laws even though, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent when such laws are passed? Choice (E) does not help to explain this apparent discrepancy and can be eliminated.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6923
Own Kudos [?]: 63674 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
Expert Reply
And welcome to GMAT Club, EwokBanshee!!
Current Student
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Status:He came. He saw. He conquered. -- Going to Business School -- Corruptus in Extremis
Posts: 1734
Own Kudos [?]: 5743 [1]
Given Kudos: 3054
Location: United States (MA)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Bumping for discussion. Fun LSAT question!
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2013
Posts: 412
Own Kudos [?]: 307 [0]
Given Kudos: 117
Location: Kuwait
GPA: 3.2
WE:Engineering (Real Estate)
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
Hi sandersal

The discrepancy is why there is no decrease even though the law is in effect?

It remained the same.

Answer choice B introduces pedestrians.

Say for example 2 years ago there were 100 fatalities and now it is 93 right?

The inclusion of the pedestrian fatalities may explain why it remained the same.

So we need something that does not explain why it remained the same.

Posted from my mobile device
Intern
Intern
Joined: 19 Jun 2019
Status:Classified
Posts: 34
Own Kudos [?]: 49 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
mba1382 wrote:
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city, seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?
(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

Please explain your reasoning.


Laws were in effect for the past two years but option B states that the city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its report.
Isn't option B irrelevant since the pedestrian fatalities are added at present and not 2 years ago?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6923
Own Kudos [?]: 63674 [0]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Palladin wrote:
mba1382 wrote:
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffic fatalities decline by about 7 percent in those areas in which strict laws requiring drivers and passengers to wear seat belts have been passed. In a certain city, seat belt laws have been in effect for two years, but the city's public safety records show that the number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Which one of the following, if true, does NOT help resolve the apparent discrepancy between the safety report and the city public safety records?
(A) Two years ago speed limits in the city were increased by as much as 15 kph (9 mph).
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.
(C) In the time since the seat belt laws were passed, the city has experienced a higher than average increase in automobile traffic.
(D) Because the city's seat belt laws have been so rarely enforced, few drivers in the city have complied with them,
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.

Please explain your reasoning.


Laws were in effect for the past two years but option B states that the city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its report.
Isn't option B irrelevant since the pedestrian fatalities are added at present and not 2 years ago?

In an average city, strict seat belt laws decrease the number of traffic deaths. In this city, however, there has been no such decrease since the laws were enacted two years ago. How can (B) help explain this discrepancy?
Quote:
(B) The city now includes pedestrian fatalities in its yearly total of traffic deaths, whereas two years ago it did not.

(B) tells us that the city has "now" added another category of fatality to include in its statistics about traffic deaths. So even if seat belts laws have reduced other kinds of traffic deaths in the past two years, this reduction could be balanced out by the additional pedestrian fatalities that are now counted in the total tally of traffic deaths.

Consider this example:
  • Two years ago, there were not strict seat belt laws in place in this city, and only driver and passenger deaths were included in the city's traffic fatality statistics.
  • Now, strict seat belt laws are in place. The total numbers of driver and passenger deaths are LOWER than the number of similar fatalities two years ago, as expected! However, now pedestrian deaths are counted toward the total fatalities -- thus inflating the total tally and explaining why traffic fatalities have remained the same despite the strict seat belt laws.

The additional category included in the most recent reports explains why overall fatalities have not gone down despite the enactment of strict seat belt laws. Because (B) helps resolve the discrepancy, it is not the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
Director
Director
Joined: 03 Mar 2017
Posts: 586
Own Kudos [?]: 418 [0]
Given Kudos: 596
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Technology
Send PM
A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
GMATNinja generis nightblade354
The crux of the story is that the fatality rate should have declined by 7%. However, in a city , for the past 2 years number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Option E says:--
Quote:
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.


This option says that those people who got killed were not wearing seat belts. Had they wore seat belts, they would be safe.
The number of deaths remaining same therefore is because of people not wearing seat belts.

I think this option resolves the discrepancy. So this should not be the answer as we are asked to find an option that DOES NOT help resolve the discrepancy.

Please help!!
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2019
Posts: 237
Own Kudos [?]: 65 [0]
Given Kudos: 309
Location: India
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.85
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
warrior1991 wrote:
GMATNinja generis nightblade354
The crux of the story is that the fatality rate should have declined by 7%. However, in a city , for the past 2 years number of traffic deaths per year has remained the same.

Option E says:--
Quote:
(E) In the last two years, most of the people killed in car accidents in the city were not wearing seat belts.


This option says that those people who got killed were not wearing seat belts. Had they wore seat belts, they would be safe.
The number of deaths remaining same therefore is because of people not wearing seat belts.

I think this option resolves the discrepancy. So this should not be the answer as we are asked to find an option that DOES NOT help resolve the discrepancy.

Please help!!

"This option says that those people who got killed were not wearing seat belts. Had they wore seat belts, they would be safe."
The number of deaths may decrease as well if people wore the seatbelts. Therefore E is not correct
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Feb 2021
Posts: 11
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 13
Send PM
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
himanshujovi wrote:
Why not B which introduces a new category of accident victimes - pedestrian walkers who obviously have no bearing on seat belts ?


Hey,
Here you to give importance to both "true" and "Not" in the question
GMAT Club Bot
Re: A safety report indicates that, on average, traffrc fataliti [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne