|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 461
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 6
|
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were [#permalink]
 04 Dec 2008, 06:14
Question Stats:
64% (01:43) correct
35% (01:47) wrong based on 0 sessions
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executives argument?
A. Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
B. Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
C. New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
D. Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
E. Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2008
Posts: 69
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
15
[1] , given: 0
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
04 Dec 2008, 08:22
1
This post received
KUDOS
Nihit wrote: Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executives argument?
A. Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
B. Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
C. New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
D. Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
E. Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.
IMO C
Argument: we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency
Premise:
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts
Why do the executive oppose the guideliness? Guidelines require cars with high effeciency and for this card have to be made small
( Small car-higher effeciency)
Weaken argument:
We have to show that somehow effeciency can be achieved without making cars small
C clearly does it.
New tech system can help even large cars to be fuel effecient and hence adhere the guideliness
A, B-dont talk at all about effecieny..Omit
E-weakens to some extent..but not as much as C
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Posts: 775
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
32
[0], given: 99
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
04 Dec 2008, 09:15
I think C.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 12 Oct 2008
Posts: 563
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
21
[0], given: 2
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
04 Dec 2008, 09:54
Yup I agree with C, however I was thinking abt A or B, but the qrgument talks abt fuel efficiency and not abt accidents or injuries
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
58
[0], given: 51
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
07 May 2011, 13:54
i too think C is the right answer, We have to show that somehow efficiency can be achieved without making cars small C clearly does it. but there is one doubt , there is an assumption here that the small size of the car is the cause of more accidents , i think there is a correlation , but not a cause and effect relationship
_________________
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 16 Mar 2011
Posts: 190
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 1
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
07 May 2011, 13:56
C brings a new factor that has nothing to do with the weight issue that could resolve the problem. so making the aout maker urgument useless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1400
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
84
[0], given: 10
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
07 May 2011, 14:09
garimavyas wrote: i too think C is the right answer, We have to show that somehow efficiency can be achieved without making cars small
C clearly does it.
but there is one doubt , there is an assumption here that the small size of the car is the cause of more accidents , i think there is a correlation , but not a cause and effect relationship Focal point is rejection of guidelines to make fuel efficient cars. C shows a way with which even large cars can be more fuel efficient. Premise - had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. fatalities are more,not the number of accidents. Hence to reduce this, large cars are a must. Its indeed a co relation though.
_________________
Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 657
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
58
[0], given: 51
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
08 May 2011, 06:13
whether fatalities or accident , the point of the assumption is that the cause is small size of the car, but that has not been proved, the best answer is based on the logic, 'remove the cause and the effect ceases',which can not be applied here.
_________________
What is of supreme importance in war is to attack the enemy's strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Status: 2000 posts! I don't know whether I should feel great or sad about it! LOL
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 1756
Location: Peru
Schools: Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, MIT & HKS (Government)
WE 1: Economic research
WE 2: Banking
WE 3: Government: Foreign Trade and SMEs
Followers: 50
Kudos [?]:
145
[0], given: 108
|
Re: CR: small cars [#permalink]
09 May 2011, 01:12
+1 C B doesn't solve the problem related to fatalities.
_________________
"Life’s battle doesn’t always go to stronger or faster men; but sooner or later the man who wins is the one who thinks he can."
My Integrated Reasoning Logbook / Diary: my-ir-logbook-diary-133264.html
Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: CR: small cars
[#permalink]
09 May 2011, 01:12
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
