Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm reading this question is: "Find 4 A/C that Weaken the argument, and the A/C that does not do this is your answer". Technically, A/Cs that are irrelevant to driving skills (i.e. A, C, E) do not Weaken the idea that teens lack basic driving skills.

To clarify, the Q does not ask: tell me which A/C "Strengthens" the idea that teens lack basic driving skills. The Q asks "tells me which does not weaken". This can be done 2 ways: 1) by "strengthening" ; 2) and by not weakening

You are right. Other than D, the rest of the options does weakens the claim that teens lack driving skills. Only D does support/strengthen the argument and hence the correct answer.

- Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.

We need to find that option which does not weaken "teenagers lack basic skills". Rest all options will weaken this. So they will give alternative explanation on why young drivers make up only 7% of registered drivers but are responsible for 14% fatalities.

(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.
The car could be the reason. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.
Not taking safety precautions could be the reason. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.
They drive more and hence are more prone to accidents. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
Here the problem is teenagers' skills.

(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.
More people in the car is the reason for more fatalities. The teenagers basic skills may not be a problem.

Answer (D)

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but I can't see how that makes sense.

Again, the Conclusion is that teens LACK driving skills. We do NOT want to weaken this (hence "Weaken EXCEPT". Therefore, there "should" be 4 A/C that "WEAKEN" the argument, and we want the A/C that does NOT do this. So, if I want to "Strengthen" this, I could say, "yeah, they don't put on their seatbelts (B), so yes they do lack basic driving skills...this is one of the first safety precautions/things you learn when you begin driving, or I could say "yeah, they lack driving skills b/c they cause really serious car accidents so they must not know what they're doing (D).

BUT the main problem I have w/ the A/C below is that I do not believe any of them WEAKEN the argument, which is where I'm getting confused
- (A) If you told me "Teens LACK driving skills" and then say "They drive older and less stable cars" I'd say "this sentence does not WEAKEN the idea that teens suck at driving b/c maybe they can't afford newer/more stable cars, but they may still be careful drivers".
- (C) If you told me "they drive a lot more than other drivers", I'd say "well yeah but again this doesn't weaken the idea that teens can't drive well b/c this tells me nothing about their driving skills sucking -- what if they're really careful on the road?",
- (E) If you told me "hey they have a lot of passengers", I'd say "again this doesn't WEAKEN the idea that teens cannot drive well -- maybe their passengers are not a distraction to the driver, maybe the driver has good driving skills still"


VeritasPrepKarishma, can you please explain where I'm going wrong here?

The reason A and C weaken the argument is the data on which the conclusion is based.

Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
This makes the author argue that teens lack basic skills.

But if he is told that teens drive old cars, could that explain that they are responsible for over 14% fatalities? Yes. Old and less stable cars are likely to lead to more fatalities if they are in an accident. So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills.

Same logic for (C).

(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.

If teenagers drive more, the chance of an accident increases. It is just about probabilities. If a person drives 20 km a day, the probability of an accident is higher than if the same person travels 10 km every day.
So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills. The extra drive could be the reason for the higher number of fatalities.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.