Does 'impacted cars in rear-end collisions' mean that those cars are hit by some other car from the back?

If that is the case then Answer should be choice (A).

Posted from my mobile device

Confused between A and C. I chose A which is incorrect . Can somebody help me to undestand why A is wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

I have a hard time believing it is C. If that were true, then we should expect the sport cars to be rear-ended/impacted more since there is not enough braking distance for the cars behind them to stop.

Furthermore, A describes a front-end collision which is completely out of scope in the context of the passage.

The answer should be B in my opinion.

Should be B. potterhead do you have the official explanation?

B should be the answer. Answer choices A and C both describe a situation where the sedan or sports car rear end someone else, not where they are impacted. Answer choice B would cause sedans to be rear ended more as other cars would travel closer thus decreasing the time the other driver has to stop.

Hard for me to believe the OA. If sport cars have strong brakes then the probability of them getting hit from rear is much more.
Should be B as it correctly gives the reason for Sedan's having more rear collisions.

daagh VeritasKarishma GMATNinja carcass mikemcgarry

Dear Experts,
Could you please help with an explanation on this one? Thank You.

The answer choices do not make sense to me . A and C are both plausible but they each explain one of the facet of two. This practice is wrong in explain the discrepancy.
If we choose C , we can argue that the same may be the case for trucks. We cannot make our assumptions regarding the braking system of trucks.
similarly, in A we are told about trucks, but what about sports cars??? even they may have ineffective brakes.
also both of them use " for their size" , so either explanation is credible , but none are independently sufficient.
This is the case where the test makers illogically try to exploit the term "best explains" ...
This question is WRONG

Meaning
Rear-end collision: Basically this means a car hits another car in front of it. Impacted car in a rear end collision will be the car that got hit at the rear-end.
Braking distance is the distance traveled after application of break and before the car stops.
Analysis of argument:
The argument says that, although large sedans make up only 17 percent of the cars on the road, they are the impacted cars in 25 percent of all rear-end collision. On the other hand, though sports cars represent 12 percent of cars on the road, they are the impacted cars in only 6 percent of rear-end collisions. The question expects us to reason for the data observed for sports cars. While it is expected that sports car will be say closer to 25% of impacted cars in rear-end collisions as they make up almost same percentage of cars on the road as sedans, sports car make less percentage of impacted cars in rear-end collisions. This is the paradox that has to be resolved.

Option Analysis:
A) This is talking about stopping in time to avoid hitting the obstacle. This statement will make more sense if the passage is talking about front-end collisions, but the argument is about rear-end collisions. Clearly, this option is irrelevant.
B)This is talking about one feature that will increase the probability of rear-end collision in sedan. This will resolve the paradox.
C)This is talking about braking distance of sports cars compared to breaking distance of other cars that follow them. If the other cars that follow have larger braking distance, the chances are more like that they will hit the rear-end of sports car. This does not resolve the paradox.
D)Out of scope. We are not concerned about the number of sedans.
E)Out of scope. If the drivers have slower reflexes then it is a concern for front-end collision and not rear-end.

IMO:option B

I picked A and it is the wrong answer. Can someone please post the official explanation?

Hi Experts,

Can you please explain this question? IMO answer should be B as both A & C talks about brakes and the braking distance, which in no way can be involved for a rear-end collision.
Only B explains the fact that as sedans move slowly than the average, the probability of other cars hitting a sedan from back increases. So I feel that's the correct answer.

Official Explanation
Identify the Question Type:

The words "best explains" indicates that this is an Explain question. Expect there to be a paradox or apparent contradiction in the stimulus, and the answer to explain how both parts of the apparent contradiction can be true at the same time.

Untangle the Stimulus:

Untangle the stimulus in an Explain question by paraphrasing the two parts of the apparent contradiction. Here, large sedans are rear-ended more frequently than their representation on the road would suggest, and sports cars are rear-ended less frequently.

Predict the Answer:

It’s difficult to predict an exact answer for most Explain questions. However, expect the correct answer to describe something unique about large sedans or sports cars that would make sedans more susceptible to rear-end collisions and/or sports cars less susceptible.

Evaluate the Answer Choices:

(B) is correct because it explains why large sedans might be rear-ended more frequently. Since other drivers follow them too closely, the risk of a rear-end collision increases.

(A) might explain why large sedans rear-end cars in front of them, but not why they themselves are rear-ended more often than expected.

(C) deepens the mystery. If sports cars can stop in less distance than most other cars, they should be rear-ended more often, since others cars behind the sports cars wouldn't be able to stop as fast. Yet the statistics show the opposite.

(D) doesn't explain anything, because it's not the number of large sedans on the road that matters, it's the fact that in terms of percentage of all cars on the road, they are rear-ended more often than would be expected.

(E) might explain why large sedans might hit other cars in front of them, but not why they are hit so frequently from behind. The slower reflexes of the older drivers might cause them to fail to apply the brakes fast enough, thereby crashing into the car in front of them. But why do they get hit from behind? (E) doesn't explain this.

TAKEAWAY: The answer to an Explain question must show how both parts of the apparent contradiction can be true at the same time. Watch out for choices that deal with only one part of the contradiction.

With all due respect, I don't think the question is clear. There seems to be a couple of ambiguities. The question talks about the rear-end collisions, but the question does not make it clear whether it is talking about rear-end collision of the car that is associated with us or the car in front. If we take the scenario of the car in front as well, then the best answer in my opinion should be E, because it tells why the larger sedans are more susceptible to accidents.
Please help me understand this question better.

Dear 41396302717
Greetings!
Trust you're doing well.
I beg to differ.
The premise clearly mentions that 'they are the impacted cars in 25 percent of all rear-end collisions'.
That means that the large Sedans do get hit from the rear.
The option 'B' gives a possible reason, but I really do not understand how option 'C' best explains the data.

Regards

Hello, Bunuel. I see that you have edited the OA once, but I think the answer should be (B), especially in light of the Official Explanation given by MI83 above, in this post. Please correct the OA unless you know of a Kaplan source that says otherwise.

Thank you.

- Andrew

______________________
Edited the OA. Thank you
_________________

From what I understood, the premise says the cars that are associated with us are the ones impacted in 25 % of the rear-end collisions.
True, but the premise does not give us any evidence to negate the possibility of the car not having its front-end damaged in a collision, which has impacted the rear-end of another car. Again, it is a rear-end collision but has impacted the front-end.