|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 333
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
D or E ? Please explain..
Thanks - Sharad[/img]
Attachments
Nova-CR.JPG [ 54.27 KiB | Viewed 304 times ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 22 May 2006
Posts: 176
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
I'll go with D. If there are less cars driving, then the decrease is not from the campaign.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1744
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Will go with D.
The author argues that number of accidents on a particular stretch reduced by 25% since last year due to the speeding limits implemented.
To compare past data with present data, one of the factors should be kept constant to reach a conclusion. The constant thing here would be the number of miles driven on that particular stretch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
easy D....this trap is quite common in gmat...so engrave it on your bosom
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 140
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Is B is talking about the same comparability of data? Why D is better than B?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Natalya Khimich wrote: Is B is talking about the same comparability of data? Why D is better than B?
because even though B is talking about the same weekend, in the 1st year, weather was really bad leading to more accidents. Hence traffic patrols didn't do jack! ..... if this is true, then B does not stand
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 333
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
jaynayak wrote: Will go with D.
The author argues that number of accidents on a particular stretch reduced by 25% since last year due to the speeding limits implemented.
To compare past data with present data, one of the factors should be kept constant to reach a conclusion. The constant thing here would be the number of miles driven on that particular stretch.
Thanks for reply.. I have seen questions in Kaplan where they choose answers similar to E as ASSUMPTION and thus make sure that nothing else was responsible for the observed conclusion except the cause mentioned in the CR..
So in this case - lowered rate of speeding is the only cause of reduced accidents - is a good assumption..
why not E?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1421
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 0
|
sharadGmat wrote: jaynayak wrote: Will go with D.
The author argues that number of accidents on a particular stretch reduced by 25% since last year due to the speeding limits implemented.
To compare past data with present data, one of the factors should be kept constant to reach a conclusion. The constant thing here would be the number of miles driven on that particular stretch. Thanks for reply.. I have seen questions in Kaplan where they choose answers similar to E as ASSUMPTION and thus make sure that nothing else was responsible for the observed conclusion except the cause mentioned in the CR.. So in this case - lowered rate of speeding is the only cause of reduced accidents - is a good assumption.. why not E? I think E is wrong because it is very general... and applies to the speeding as a whole rather than at this particular chunk of highway
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 96
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
I go with D....we have to assume all things are the same, comparing apples to apples.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 764
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
This is tough, I can't figure out between D and E, but here is my line of thought.
Evidence: number of accidents this year is 3/4 of last year
Conclusion:
PC against speeding => safer driving habits
A1: safer driving habits cause lower number of accidents (though this seems obvious, it is an assumption)
A2: Traffic on the 2 days being compared was similar in terms of factors that may count towards total number of accidents, apart from the driving habits of people.
D seems good since if the distance travelled was less than 75% of the dist. travelled on the previous date, then the evidence is in doubt, and would weaken the conclusion. For example, if the distance travelled on that stretch was 1 mile on the second date, and the distance travelled the 1st time was 100 miles, then it means that there was actually a worsening of driving habits.
Lets consider E as well. If E is not true then we end up with:
A reduction in speeding is not the only driving habit that has improved.
This means that there are other driving habits which may have improved, but it does not say that 'speeding' has not been rectified. This does imply that some of the reduction in accidents could be because of some other improvements in driving habits. However, it does not quantify what percentage of the improvement is due to the other factors....hence I choose D
NO points to me on this one, I originally chose E 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 333
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
Futuristic wrote: This is tough, I can't figure out between D and E, but here is my line of thought.
Evidence: number of accidents this year is 3/4 of last year
Conclusion:
PC against speeding => safer driving habits
A1: safer driving habits cause lower number of accidents (though this seems obvious, it is an assumption)
A2: Traffic on the 2 days being compared was similar in terms of factors that may count towards total number of accidents, apart from the driving habits of people.
D seems good since if the distance travelled was less than 75% of the dist. travelled on the previous date, then the evidence is in doubt, and would weaken the conclusion. For example, if the distance travelled on that stretch was 1 mile on the second date, and the distance travelled the 1st time was 100 miles, then it means that there was actually a worsening of driving habits.
Lets consider E as well. If E is not true then we end up with:
A reduction in speeding is not the only driving habit that has improved.
This means that there are other driving habits which may have improved, but it does not say that 'speeding' has not been rectified. This does imply that some of the reduction in accidents could be because of some other improvements in driving habits. However, it does not quantify what percentage of the improvement is due to the other factors....hence I choose D
NO points to me on this one, I originally chose E
I understand why D makes sense.. I think E makes equally more sense..
Reasons are:
Highway Patrol took measures to reduce the speed.. And this reduced the number of accidents.. But there could be other things such as improved roads etc also contributing to reduced accidents..
E makes it clearly that only reduced speeds were responsible for reduced accidents..
Any comments ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 950
Location: France
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
sharadGmat wrote: Futuristic wrote: This is tough, I can't figure out between D and E, but here is my line of thought.
Evidence: number of accidents this year is 3/4 of last year
Conclusion:
PC against speeding => safer driving habits
A1: safer driving habits cause lower number of accidents (though this seems obvious, it is an assumption)
A2: Traffic on the 2 days being compared was similar in terms of factors that may count towards total number of accidents, apart from the driving habits of people.
D seems good since if the distance travelled was less than 75% of the dist. travelled on the previous date, then the evidence is in doubt, and would weaken the conclusion. For example, if the distance travelled on that stretch was 1 mile on the second date, and the distance travelled the 1st time was 100 miles, then it means that there was actually a worsening of driving habits.
Lets consider E as well. If E is not true then we end up with:
A reduction in speeding is not the only driving habit that has improved.
This means that there are other driving habits which may have improved, but it does not say that 'speeding' has not been rectified. This does imply that some of the reduction in accidents could be because of some other improvements in driving habits. However, it does not quantify what percentage of the improvement is due to the other factors....hence I choose D
NO points to me on this one, I originally chose E I understand why D makes sense.. I think E makes equally more sense.. Reasons are: Highway Patrol took measures to reduce the speed.. And this reduced the number of accidents.. But there could be other things such as improved roads etc also contributing to reduced accidents.. E makes it clearly that only reduced speeds were responsible for reduced accidents.. Any comments ? You are on the right track, but this (E) is not an assumption on which the conclusion of the argument stands
_________________
I believe its yogurt!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Louvain, Belgium
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
I think E too
-->less accidents this year as compared to last year
-->highway patrol's campaign to reduce speed
Conclusion : speed reduced beacause of patrols campaign
Assumption : reduction is speeding is the only factor which has changed
any other factors changing does not attribute it to the patrols campaign
option D assumes that the number of accidents accidents depend on the miles driven , but the cause is speeding as implied in the conclusion
OA please ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 333
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
foolz_rulz wrote: I think E too
-->less accidents this year as compared to last year
-->highway patrol's campaign to reduce speed
Conclusion : speed reduced beacause of patrols campaign
Assumption : reduction is speeding is the only factor which has changed
any other factors changing does not attribute it to the patrols campaign
option D assumes that the number of accidents accidents depend on the miles driven , but the cause is speeding as implied in the conclusion
OA please ...
OA is D.. This example was in NOVA test.. I have seen similar examples in Kaplan and they use the following strategy..
For causation CRs, such as above one, the correct answer is the one that shows that there is only one cause and that no other cause is responsible for the action mentioned in the conclusion..This makes me pick E. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 791
Followers: 3
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
I'm thinking E as well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 May 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Louvain, Belgium
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
your method of only one cause for such questions is satisfied by option E
do u have the OE please , else u can kindly elucidate further
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 480
Location: united states
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
the author concluded that the campaign against speeding has resulted in safer driving. So he is assumming that
1) campaign is causing the number of accidents to drop or
2) speeding is the only cause of accidents.
only E satisfies it. A is close, but we only have only two sets of data. We need more data to conclude that the number of accidents are decreasing with time.
_________________
for every person who doesn't try because he is
afraid of loosing , there is another person who
keeps making mistakes and succeeds..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
Posts: 49
Location: Big Apple
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - tricky one.. [#permalink]
 23 Jun 2006, 15:47
D.
Conclusion: Campaign against speeding led to lower rates if all things being equal.
What is equal....many things, though one of them is an assumption that the miles driven in both years was the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 588
Location: Munich,Germany
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
7
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR - tricky one.. [#permalink]
12 Jul 2006, 07:46
I actually I cant even understand why it should be D. Just because people have driven 25% does not mean that there have 25% lesser accidents. If you negate that particular option the argument will still stand and wont fall apart.
E correctly points out to an option which when negated will destroy the argument. It specifically rules out any further causes for the decline in the number of accidents and upholds the fact that in fact, it was the speeding campaign that led to lower accident rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
Poorly written Nova question IMO. Looks like both D and E are viable assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
