GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 14 Oct 2019, 18:27

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

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Posts: 51
A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jul 2011, 14:05
9
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

69% (01:55) correct 31% (02:08) wrong based on 456 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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!

_________________
---Winners do it differently---
Manager
Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 184

Show Tags

Updated on: 06 Jul 2011, 14:29
2
a) out of scope, so cross immediately.

b) this is nothing but what the passage already says. the passage says 40% who were issued the ticket had received previously too.

c) however vigilant miami is doesn't matters. We have to rebuke the theory that boaters who receive a speeding ticket once are more likely to repeat the mistake.

d) out of scope.

e) This is the answer. tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again.

So the representative data of forming the opinion itself is wrong as pointed in option E. If you only take data from one place then surely only people who live near it are likely to be present in that place. so sample size over which survey was done is too small and unrepresentative of forming any opinion. Thus the argument is weakened.

Originally posted by Aj85 on 06 Jul 2011, 14:25.
Last edited by Aj85 on 06 Jul 2011, 14:29, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 60

Show Tags

06 Jul 2011, 14:26
nice question.

Ans E because :

premise 1 : 2pc of total boaters are caught.
premise 2 : 40pc of the tickets are issued to people who have had atleast one ticket before.

consider an extreme case in which out of the 2pc => everyone got ticket only once whereas =>one person committed sppeding crimes continously and kept on getting tickets => percentage numbers would get inflated up by his act even though it wont be the true indicator.

so Ans E

any doubt? I feel my explanation was not very satisfactory.
_________________
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate :
I am the captain of my soul.
~ William Ernest Henley
Manager
Joined: 05 Jul 2011
Posts: 51

Show Tags

06 Jul 2011, 14:37
Agreed that if just one person is committing the crime, the pc would go up. But thats wat we assume. If we read the argument (option E) , It says, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again. Doesn't it also indicate that people who have got ticketed, do tend to commit crime repeatedly there by strengthening the argument??!
_________________
---Winners do it differently---
Manager
Joined: 29 Jun 2011
Posts: 60

Show Tags

06 Jul 2011, 14:57
"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."

When they are measuring first time criminals then the sample is bound to be all different. But fore more than one, many will be repeaters. we agree till here?

now there is the dilemma of "many" and "most". "many" means the number is more than one whereas "most" would mean more than 50%.

also, the use of "same location" is restricting the sample.

If the statement had said that the different locations caught most of the boaters again and again, your argument would hold and this would strengthen the conclusion.

did the explanation make sense?
_________________
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate :
I am the captain of my soul.
~ William Ernest Henley
Manager
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 167
Schools: UNC Duke Kellogg

Show Tags

06 Jul 2011, 21:44
E for me -- it weakens the assumption.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 1585

Show Tags

07 Jul 2011, 06:47
RohitKalla wrote:
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.

Footnote:
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.
_________________
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Dec 2010
Posts: 375

Show Tags

08 Jul 2011, 22:01
this is not similar to the radar problem of the OG 12 .this is fairly simple compared to that problem in OG

look at this one
a-recent-report-determined-94309.html
Retired Moderator
Status: enjoying
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 5092
Location: India
WE: Education (Education)
Re: A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Feb 2016, 11:30
An insufficient sampling is never representative. It weakens all generalizations So E is the best .
_________________
If you can't sync with the vibe of GMAT, you had better think!!!
SVP
Status: It's near - I can see.
Joined: 13 Apr 2013
Posts: 1685
Location: India
GPA: 3.01
WE: Engineering (Real Estate)
Re: A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of  [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Feb 2019, 23:51
RohitKalla wrote:
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!

:wall :bouncer2

E is the clear winner as it shows sample/survey is not representative, and therefore we can not conclude anything from this.

_________________
"Do not watch clock; Do what it does. KEEP GOING."
Re: A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of   [#permalink] 07 Feb 2019, 23:51
Display posts from previous: Sort by