We need explanations from some so-called "certified" CR : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 22 Jan 2017, 08:35

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# We need explanations from some so-called "certified" CR

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Eternal Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

We need explanations from some so-called "certified" CR [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2003, 06:12
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

We need explanations from some so-called "certified" CR expert for others to improve. I just post the ones I feel are interesting and raises a discussion over wine.

great durability of automobiles manufactured by the
Deluxe Motor Car Company cites as evidence the fact
that over half of all automobiles built by the company
since 1970 are still on the road today, compared to
no more than a third for any other manufacturer.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports
(A) After taking inflation into account, a new Deluxe
automobile costs only slightly more than a new
model did in 1970.
(B) The number of automobiles built by Deluxe each
year has not increased sharply since 1970.
(C) Owners of Deluxe automobiles typically keep
their cars well maintained.
(D) Since 1970, Deluxe has made fewer changes in
the automobiles it manufactures than other car
companies have made in their automobiles.
(E) Deluxe automobiles have been selling at rela-
tively stable prices in recent years.
E- attractive because maybe the cars are durable enough that prices don't depreciate. However, not all cars sold are new.

D- attractive because maybe the quality is so good it doesn't need to make changes in the quality changes in a car. But, not all changes are improvements and some are enhancers.

Last edited by Curly05 on 27 Jul 2003, 07:54, edited 1 time in total.
If you have any questions
New!
SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 245 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2003, 07:14
I vote for B. If the number of the cars sharply increases since 1970, then to say "over 50% of our cars are stiil OK" is to include many, many new cars. It would weaken the argument. B says the opposite -- the number of "new" cars is not significantly increased. Thus, even old cars are still on roads.
It would be more stronger to say that the year number of produced cars has decreased each year since 1970.

See a difference?

BTW, I am a pretty poor verbalist and of course have no certificate.
Eternal Intern
Joined: 07 Jun 2003
Posts: 467
Location: Lone Star State
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 144 [0], given: 0

Attention Stolyar: this is the case [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2003, 10:58
Deluxe does not need to produce new cars because their other cars last longer and hence no demand for new cars.

Please comment on my other selection choices that I have commented on it. What's your favorite wine?

This sight is extremely lonely over the weekend. must be alot of 800's out there.
Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2003
Posts: 25
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2003, 17:41
I like B.

As for option E - it talks about price, and price has nothing to do with either the quality of a car or how long a car lasts on the road.

Your logic for option D is fine - it just assumes too much. What if the quality of the cars was poor in 1970 and the quality is still poor today. If they never bothered to fix the cars' quality, then they may have made less changes than the competition.
Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 72
Location: USA
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2003, 13:01
B come to the main point.
Suppose from 1970 to 2002, we produce only 1 car a year and in 2003, we produce and sell 100000 cars. so even better than 1/2 right
_________________

I have 2 month for gmat.

SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1793
Location: NewJersey USA
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 98 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2003, 07:34
Durability means cars on the road for long. This is what the argument says.

A - Price has nothing to do with the durability. Also slight increase does not make such a big difference given the quality of the car
C - This will definitely weaken the argument. It says it is not the quality but the maintainence that is responsible for longevity
D - This statement would have been strong if it said it has made very few design changes in the car. It just says some changes ( which could be cigarate lighter
E - If the delux cars are selling at stage prices means that the neither there is huge demand nor there is loss of demand. Cannot really relate to the durability of the car.

B - This gives evidence that there is no increase in the production of new cars. This the only assumption that connects the premise and the conclusion.
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2004, 05:29
stolyar wrote:
I vote for B. If the number of the cars sharply increases since 1970, then to say "over 50% of our cars are stiil OK" is to include many, many new cars. It would weaken the argument. B says the opposite -- the number of "new" cars is not significantly increased. Thus, even old cars are still on roads.
It would be more stronger to say that the year number of produced cars has decreased each year since 1970.

See a difference?

BTW, I am a pretty poor verbalist and of course have no certificate.

Can anyone clarify my question to stolyar's response:

"We are equating the "non" increase in cars over time to the fact that old cars are still running, correct? How can we say that its only because of "quality" [meaning the cars dont breakdown] and not say something else [increase in demand for these cars]?

Am i missing something here? Pls any help is greatly appreciated.
Intern
Joined: 26 Nov 2004
Posts: 47
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2004, 21:36
What's the OA for this one. Curious.
Director
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 700
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2004, 06:23
The OA is "B" but can someone please explain my query?

regards
gmataquaguy
Director
Joined: 25 Jan 2004
Posts: 728
Location: Milwaukee
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Dec 2004, 08:35
gmataquaguy wrote:
stolyar wrote:
I vote for B. If the number of the cars sharply increases since 1970, then to say "over 50% of our cars are stiil OK" is to include many, many new cars. It would weaken the argument. B says the opposite -- the number of "new" cars is not significantly increased. Thus, even old cars are still on roads.
It would be more stronger to say that the year number of produced cars has decreased each year since 1970.

See a difference?

BTW, I am a pretty poor verbalist and of course have no certificate.

Can anyone clarify my question to stolyar's response:

"We are equating the "non" increase in cars over time to the fact that old cars are still running, correct? How can we say that its only because of "quality" [meaning the cars dont breakdown] and not say something else [increase in demand for these cars]?

Am i missing something here? Pls any help is greatly appreciated.

gmataquaguy,
You have a point, but you have to remember that your point is out of context. Here we don't really focus on the demand. Just you mentioned demand in your example, you can also make argue that even though Deluxe Motor Car Company's competitor's cars were as good as better, owners of these cars switched to SUV's or public transportation. Hence, competitor's car's didn't get enough mentainance to stay healthy. Again, this arguement is ofcourse "out of context"
_________________

Praveen

07 Dec 2004, 08:35
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Some CR Questions along with answers (and explanation) 0 20 May 2014, 08:11
Need some assistance with following instructions in MGMAT CR 2 16 Jan 2012, 21:43
1 explanation needed 9 08 May 2010, 14:42
I had this one correct but need explanations from you all. I 3 07 Jul 2009, 07:37
CR Explanation 2 05 Aug 2007, 22:29
Display posts from previous: Sort by