Last visit was: 17 May 2024, 23:43 It is currently 17 May 2024, 23:43
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Math Expert
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 93334
Own Kudos [?]: 624582 [12]
Given Kudos: 81898
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 922
Own Kudos [?]: 1593 [5]
Given Kudos: 83
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
General Discussion
Director
Director
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 716
Own Kudos [?]: 329 [4]
Given Kudos: 463
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2023
Posts: 23
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 152
Send PM
Re: ­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving [#permalink]
MartyMurray I didn't understand why B as an answer got eliminated. What I presumed was that if there are reliable tests that will allow prosinopsis to be diagnosed in its earliest stages then probably people being diagnosed won't take the risk of driving because prosinopsis as a disease reduces peripheral vision. If there are better and reliable tests, there would be effective and reliable results and people would take precautions (like not driving)

Can you help me understand where exactly am I going wrong and how should I modify my thought process
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 922
Own Kudos [?]: 1593 [1]
Given Kudos: 83
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
 
Jayam12 wrote:
MartyMurray I didn't understand why B as an answer got eliminated. What I presumed was that if there are reliable tests that will allow prosinopsis to be diagnosed in its earliest stages then probably people being diagnosed won't take the risk of driving because prosinopsis as a disease reduces peripheral vision. If there are better and reliable tests, there would be effective and reliable results and people would take precautions (like not driving)

Can you help me understand where exactly am I going wrong and how should I modify my thought process

­Hi Jayam12.

You ran too far with what choice (B) says.

Here's (B):

    B. There are reliable tests that will allow prosinopsis to be diagnosed even in its earliest stages.

Here's what you assumed:

    The fact that there is a reliable test for prosinopsis means that people commonly get tested for prosinopsis.

    The fact that someone has been diagnosed with prosinopsis means that the person will decide not to drive before the person's peripheral vision has sufficiently deteriorated to cause the person to crash while driving.

Notice that we don't know that any of the above is true. In fact, we don't even know for sure that people believe that prosinopsis related issues can result in car crashes. Only the argument says that.

Furthermore, notice that the passage indicates that people experiencing prosinopsis DO DRIVE. So, we cannot weaken the argument using information that suggests that they don't drive.

Thus, the fact that they could be tested, could learn that they are experiencing prosinopsis, and therefore could stop driving has no effect on the argument since, apparently, they don't.­
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 660
Own Kudos [?]: 39 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Send PM
Re: ­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving [#permalink]
Understanding the argument - ­
Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving, 5 percent of those under 50 years old were found to have prosinopsis, a currently untreatable eye disease that causes a gradual deterioration in peripheral vision. - Background info. Basically, it says, for example, if there are 200 people who get into fatal car accidents, say 100 are below 50 and 100 are above 50. So 5% of these under 50, which is five people, have prosinopsis. 

Yet, according to medical records, only 3 percent ofTiravians under 50 have been diagnosed with prosinopsis. - Contrast. Overall, amongst under 50 population, only 3% have prosinopsis. 

Therefore, when a Tiravian driver under 50 has prosinopsis, the disease significantly increases the likelihood that the driver will have a fatal car accident. - Conclusion. Cause and effect. prosinopsis causes people to have fatal car accidents. 

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. People who have prosinopsis in its later stages are generally unable to drive because of the marked deterioration in their peripheral vision caused by the disease. - strengthener. 

B. There are reliable tests that will allow prosinopsis to be diagnosed even in its earliest stages. - At best, a strengthener. 

C. When prosinopsis is in its early stages, its effects are detectable only by means of laboratory tests, which few Tiravians under 50 undergo. - ok. It means that there may be a possibility that 50% of Tiravians under 50 have prosinopsis, but only 5% get into fatal accidents. The relation between prosinopsis and fatal car accidents is seriously weakened as the remaining 45% don't undergo any fatal accidents. This question's essence is pointing out that the 3% number may be much lower, thus weakening the causal connection. 

D. Although a large majority of Tiravians who have been diagnosed with prosinopsis are over 50, many are in their 30s and 40s. - Out of scope. 

E. Prosinopsis causes no significant deterioration in a person’s vision other than the deterioration in peripheral vision. - But then our concern is "peripheral vision" only because that's what is causing the fatal accidents under 50 years of age. So, whether peripheral causes any other significant deterioration in a person's vision is out of scope. 
Manager
Manager
Joined: 23 Jan 2024
Posts: 89
Own Kudos [?]: 15 [0]
Given Kudos: 110
Send PM
Re: ­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving [#permalink]
Hi MartyMurray,

Still finding it difficult to accept C. Question stem's premise is that a higher proportion (5% vs 3%) of drivers involved in accidents have P.
Therefore, P increases likelihood of fatal car accident.

(C): So what if P is only diagnosed after individuals get into accidents? It still shows that they had P but only found out about it later. Though it is unclear whether they had P before the accident or after.
MartyMurray wrote:
­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving, 5 percent of those under 50 years old were found to have prosinopsis, a currently untreatable eye disease that causes a gradual deterioration in peripheral vision. Yet, according to medical records, only 3 percent ofTiravians under 50 have been diagnosed with prosinopsis. Therefore, when a Tiravian driver under 50 has prosinopsis, the disease significantly increases the likelihood that the driver will have a fatal car accident.

The passage presents an argument with the following conclusion:

when a Tiravian driver under 50 has prosinopsis, the disease significantly increases the likelihood that the driver will have a fatal car accident

The reasoning of the argument is that, since a greater percentage of people under 50 involved in accidents, 5 percent, than of people under 50 in the general population, 3 percent, have been found to have prosinopsis, it must be that the disease causes people to have accidents.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

The correct answer will somehow indicate that, even though it's true that a greater percentage of people involved in accidents than of people in the general population have been found to have prosinopsis, it may not be the case that the disease causes people to have accidents.

A. People who have prosinopsis in its later stages are generally unable to drive because of the marked deterioration in their peripheral vision caused by the disease.

If anything, this choice strengthens, rather than weakens, the argument.

After all, if what this choice says is true, then it's clearly the case that the deterioration associated with prosinopsis can render people unable to drive effectively. So, it could be that, even when the disease is not "in its later stages," people who are experiencing it lose some ability to drive safely and, as a result, get into accidents.

Eliminate.

B. There are reliable tests that will allow prosinopsis to be diagnosed even in its earliest stages.

We already know from the passage that prosinopsis can be diagnosed. So, all this choice adds is that it can be diagnosed in its earliest stages.

The fact that it can be diagnosed in its earliest stages doesn't mean that it doesn't cause people to have accidents. After all, regardless of when it can be diagnosed, at some point in its progression, it could cause people to have accidents, and the evidence provided seems to indicate that it does.

Eliminate.

C. When prosinopsis is in its early stages, its effects are detectable only by means of laboratory tests, which few Tiravians under 50 undergo.

This has to be one of the least obvious Critical Reasoning correct answers I've seen. To see why this choice is correct, we have to make the following connections.

The accidents discussed in the passage are "fatal car accidents." So, using our common knowledge of the world, we can decide that it's reasonable that these accidents will be investigated.

In that case, "laboratory tests" may be done, in which case the driver may be "found" to have been experiencing prosinopsis. Notice that the passage doesn't say that these drivers had been "diagnosed" with prosinopsis. So, they were somehow "found" to have been experiencing prosinopsis after they crashed, and a logical way that finding would occur would be through laboratory testing.

So, in that case, we have an alternative explanation for the slightly higher incidence of prosinopsis in people who have fatal car accidents. That explanation is that, it may not be that the deterioration associated with prosinopsis causes accidents but, rather, that being in an accident causes a person to be more likely to be found to have been experiencing prosinopsis. After all, according to this choice, "few Tiravians under 50 undergo" testing for prosinopsis. So, it makes sense that laboratory testing done after a crash would reveal prosinopsis in a greater percentage of people than are normally diagnosed with the disease.

So, this choice weakens the case for the conclusion by indicating that something other than prosinopsis causing accidents could be what's going on.

Keep.

D. Although a large majority of Tiravians who have been diagnosed with prosinopsis are over 50, many are in their 30s and 40s.

This choice has no effect on the strength of the argument.

For one thing, we already know from the passage that 3 percent of people under 50 are diagnosed with prosinopsis.

Furthermore, the fact that people in their 30s and 40s specifically are diagnosed with prosinopsis doesn't indicate in any way that prosinopsis doesn't cause people to have accidents because there's nothing specific to people of those ages that's related to crashing cars.

In fact, if anything, this choice strengthens the argument by serving to rule out that people of a certain age group that would be more likely to get into accidents, such as drivers under 18, are most of the people diagnosed with prosinopsis. So, this choice helps to confirm that the deterioration associated with prosinopsis, and not the way people in a particular age group drive, is responsible for the accidents.

Eliminate.

E. Prosinopsis causes no significant deterioration in a person’s vision other than the deterioration in peripheral vision.

This choice could appear to weaken the argument by indicating that maybe prosinopsis doesn't do enough to vision to cause accidents. In other words, we might be tempted to think that, if prosinopsis causes no significant deterioration in a person’s vision other than the deterioration in peripheral vision, people who are experiencing prosinopsis should be able to drive safely and that, therefore, the crashes are not due to people's experiencing prosinopsis.

At the same time, the truth is that this choice doesn't change the fact that prosinopsis does affect vision, and thus could affect driving ability.

Also, this choice doesn't weaken the support provided by the fact that a greater percentage of people inolved in accidents than of people in the general population have been found to have prosinopsis. Regardless of how prosinopsis affects vision, that information supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: C­

­
GMAT Club Bot
Re: ­Among people in Tiravia who had a fatal car accident while driving [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts