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

It is currently 23 Oct 2014, 04:32

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

Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 1
Followers: 0

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

Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2006, 13:39
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
Friends,

I got this from the LSAT website.


Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often
higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim
that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If
this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because
the argument

(A) accepts without question that insurance
companies have the right to charge higher
premiums for higher-risk clients

(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to
repair as cars of other colors

(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive
recklessly have a preference for red cars

(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red
cars are involved in accidents

(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every
automobile accident results in some loss of life



I think the answer is E.

But they say it is C.


Am I missing something ?


Thanks,

avi
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 137
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2006, 13:50
I got C too.
... if red cars are banned then also careless drivers will still drive some other colored cars. The no. of accidents will not go down and people will still lose lives.

I think E uses an assumption also that loss of life is propotional to the number of accidents but I think the assumption in C is "more" incorrect.

....actually on second thoughts...the statment in E is not really an assumption of the argument. The argument does not say that that EVERY accident will lead to a death.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 104
Location: Barcelona
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2006, 15:15
E seemed to be the best on the first glance;however, E streches the assumption that "every" accident results in loss of life which is not exactly the assumption.

The assumption is that accidents results in loss of life and not every accident.

After jumping over easy trap set in E, I find that C is right answer.
_________________

...................................................................
reloading NEURON JELLY to reach another galaxy.

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 27
Followers: 0

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

 [#permalink] New post 14 Feb 2006, 16:39
C is the right answer.

Conclusion: Life will be saved by banning red cars.

What is the reasoning that will weaken the above conclusion.

(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars --> By banning red cars, we wont be keeping the reckless drivers off the road. Hence life is still at stake every after banning red cars.

(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life --> every automobile accident doesnot lead to loss. But every accident involving red car MAY lead to death. This reasoning is not strong enough to weaken the above conclusion.
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5252
Followers: 23

Kudos [?]: 139 [0], given: 0

Reviews Badge
 [#permalink] New post 17 Feb 2006, 21:49
This is a cause and effect CR. Only (C) suggests some other legitimate and plausible cause to weaken the argument.
  [#permalink] 17 Feb 2006, 21:49
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
I thought that the idiom is 'prohibited from', but got this vix 0 23 Nov 2011, 05:38
friends...I happen to come across this one through LSAT CR. kyatin 0 23 Apr 2008, 10:48
From the LSAT bible I found this to be extremely helpful in terp26 0 04 Mar 2008, 11:21
I got this problem from the GMATPrep. Because the tarek99 3 16 Nov 2007, 08:10
I got this from the Manhattan GMAT and I disagree with their AshikaP 4 23 Aug 2006, 19:49
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.