|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
sport-utility vehicles have become extremely popular because [#permalink]
 07 Jan 2004, 07:52
Question Stats:
100% (00:00) correct
0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 sessions
sport-utility vehicles have become extremely popular because of the robust and energetic image they project. although these vehicles look sturdy, they are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars. consequently, a high-impact collision involving both a passenger car and a sport-utility vehicle is much more likely to injure the latter and not the former.
each of the following serves to strengthen the conclusion above except
1. those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must
2. sport-utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision
3. the government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in all passenger cars
4. sport-utility vehicles are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate
5. people who drive sport-utility vehicles are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seatbelts
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 327
Location: MI
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
4 ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1031
Location: Florida
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
5
[0], given: 0
|
4.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 05 May 2003
Posts: 560
Location: Aus
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
3
[0], given: 0
|
Why not A ??
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4441
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
81
[0], given: 0
|
5)
The premise is that SUV are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars.
The conclusion is that therefore, in a high-impact collision, SUV passengers are more likely to be injured.
5 says that the higher probability of SUV passengers be harmed may be due to some cause ( false sense of security ) other than SUVs' "non-compliance" to government standards. This may weaken the argument, or at least, not strenghten it by giving an alternative explanation.
4 does somewhat strenghten the argument. If SUVs are bulkier, then their manoeuverability can be reduced. Also, if the acceleration is hindered, then the ability to avoid such a collision (by quickly bifurcating elsewhere before the impact), may be hindered as well. Agree, that this is more inference but IMO, it could strenghten the argument more than 5 does.
1 is no good because it clearly strenghtens the argument by saying that because SUV car makers are not under the same safety standards, then they will no be inclined to make their cars safe ( they don't have to )
_________________
Best Regards,
Paul
Last edited by Paul on 07 Jan 2004, 22:22, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 327
Location: MI
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
Good explanation Paul.
I see your point.
Official ans. ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 190
Location: work chair
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
2
[0], given: 0
|
Paul wrote: 5)
The premise is that SUV are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars.
The conclusion is that therefore, in a high-impact collision, SUV passengers are more likely to be injured.
5 says that the higher probability of SUV passengers be harmed may be due to some cause ( false sense of security ) other than SUVs' "non-compliance" to government standards. This may weaken the argument, or at least, not strenghten it by giving an alternative explanation.
4 does somewhat strenghten the argument. If SUVs are bulkier, then their manoeuverability can be reduced. Also, if the acceleration is hindered, then the ability to avoid such a collision (by quickly bifurcating elsewhere before the impact), may be hindered as well. Agree, that this is more inference but IMO, it could strenghten the argument more than 5 does.
1 is no good because it clearly strenghtens the argument by saying that because SUV car makers are not under the same safety standards, then they will no be inclined to make their cars safe ( they don't have to )
i have broken my head, while thinking about this question. i chose (b), thinking that the word "susceptable" means "stable" (not native speaker, shame on me..  ). the answer is (d). explanation arrives:
before we discuss the answer to this strengthen EXCEPT question, it's important to make a point: four of the answer choices strengthen the argument, and one does not. that doesn't necessarily mean that this fifth choice weakens the argument. it just means that it does not strengthen it (it could be out of the scope). the argument says that people who drive SUVs are more likely to be injured in a car wreck, and (b), (c) and (e) strengthen the idea by asserting either that cars are safer or that SUVs are more dangerous. (d) is irrelevant (and therefore the best answer) because we don't know if a lack of acceleration makes a car any less safe to drive. (a) strengthens because the argument says that SUVs don't have as many safety standards: thus, SUV designers will cut corners if they can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
