Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
18 Dec 2025, 06:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument: new drone fleets include no additional safeguards to prevent losses of control so accidents will become more prevalent if use of drone delivery increases.
A This is about severity, not prevalence. It doesn't weaken.
B It's irrelevant that other methods have not proven to be less accident prone.
C This could slightly weaken if increased usage doesn't mean new less safe drones, but still new flights could mean more total incidents. It weakens a bit but not strongly.
D If the frequency of unexpected loss-of-control is the same in new and old fleets, the use of more drones would imply accidents happen more often in absolute terms. It could support the argument.
E Right answer. It weakens by showing past high rate could be lowered by better training, even without new tech safeguards, so future rate could be lower.
Answer E
A This is about severity, not prevalence. It doesn't weaken.
B It's irrelevant that other methods have not proven to be less accident prone.
C This could slightly weaken if increased usage doesn't mean new less safe drones, but still new flights could mean more total incidents. It weakens a bit but not strongly.
D If the frequency of unexpected loss-of-control is the same in new and old fleets, the use of more drones would imply accidents happen more often in absolute terms. It could support the argument.
E Right answer. It weakens by showing past high rate could be lowered by better training, even without new tech safeguards, so future rate could be lower.
Answer E
18 Dec 2025, 07:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
The argument assumes the incidents are caused mainly by drone design, not by other correctable factors.
A This minimizes how serious the incidents were, but it does not challenge the claim that accidents will become more common.
B This compares drones to other delivery methods, but the argument is not about which method is safer overall.
C Even if no new drones are added, increased usage could still lead to more incidents.
D This suggests the problem is persistent over time, which actually supports the idea that accidents will continue as usage grows.
E This shows that the incidents may have been caused by poor human oversight, not by flaws in drone design. If better training is provided, accident rates could fall even without new safeguards. Correct answer.
The answer is E
A This minimizes how serious the incidents were, but it does not challenge the claim that accidents will become more common.
B This compares drones to other delivery methods, but the argument is not about which method is safer overall.
C Even if no new drones are added, increased usage could still lead to more incidents.
D This suggests the problem is persistent over time, which actually supports the idea that accidents will continue as usage grows.
E This shows that the incidents may have been caused by poor human oversight, not by flaws in drone design. If better training is provided, accident rates could fall even without new safeguards. Correct answer.
The answer is E
18 Dec 2025, 07:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
A It addresses severity, not prevalence. Irrelevant.
B The comparison is irrelevant to whether drone accident rate increases.
C If no new drones, maybe there are the same number of drones flying more trips. That could increase total incidents. It does not weaken.
D If new fleets have the same loss-of-control rate as old fleets, then expanding the drone fleet means total accidents would rise simply because there are more drones operating. This could support the conclusion.
E CORRECT. If training can be improved in the future, accident prevalence might drop. This strongly weakens the argument.
The correct answer is E
B The comparison is irrelevant to whether drone accident rate increases.
C If no new drones, maybe there are the same number of drones flying more trips. That could increase total incidents. It does not weaken.
D If new fleets have the same loss-of-control rate as old fleets, then expanding the drone fleet means total accidents would rise simply because there are more drones operating. This could support the conclusion.
E CORRECT. If training can be improved in the future, accident prevalence might drop. This strongly weakens the argument.
The correct answer is E
