A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of boaters in Miami have been issued speeding tickets, 40 percent of the boaters issued tickets had received at least one ticket previously. Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously
weaken the above argument?
A) Boaters in Miami exceed the speed limit more frequently than boaters in other Florida cities.
B) Many boaters that were ticketed for speeding were ticketed more than once in the time period of the report.
C) Miami is more vigilant in ticketing boaters who exceed the speed limit than most other cities.
D) The number of boaters ticketed for speeding during the period of this report is less than the number ticketed during the period of the previous report.
E) During the period of this report, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again.
Though it's markedly similar to one of the OG12 problem, am unable to make out the reasoning..! Somebody Please explain!
Not too convincing a weakener but not too bad either. I answered "E" by elimination and also because it gave some considerable reason to doubt the conclusion.
A generalization about an entire population using a report from a localized data set is sometimes, if not always, considered a weak argument by GMAT.