It is currently 25 Sep 2017, 21:02

### 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

# Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 22 Apr 2003
Posts: 176

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2003, 18:52
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

40% (00:31) correct 60% (01:25) wrong based on 4 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executiveтАЩs argument?
(A) Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
(B) Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
(D) Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
(E) Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 1603

Kudos [?]: 299 [1], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2003, 07:24
1
KUDOS
fuel effieciency is a distractor. The core reason to avoid producing small cars is a high incidence of fatalities. For this reason, CE does not want to follow the guidelines. I vote for B.

Kudos [?]: 299 [1], given: 0

Director
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 0

Location: Florida

### Show Tags

18 Nov 2003, 19:04

Kudos [?]: 167 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 20 Oct 2003
Posts: 13

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

Location: Moscow

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2003, 00:52
I would select A. An executive points on 'higher incidence of accident-related fatalities' with small cars as a reason to oppose recent guidlines. While, if deaths rate is as high with bigger cars as with small ones, the position of executive becomes fraud.

Would be interseted to know the official answer.

Alex.

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

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 128

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

Location: Ukraine

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2003, 09:58
I was between B and C.
Picked C cause imo if peer at B closely it appears to reinforce the conclusion istead undermining.

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

Intern
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 45

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

Location: Finland

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2003, 05:45
chihao,
so was the correct answer C?

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

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2003
Posts: 128

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

Location: Ukraine

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2003, 08:30
Hey, stolyar,
my first instinct was also to pick B and disqualify C for just being out of the scope (new computerized system is an extraneous subject).
But look, B admits that number of FATAL accidents among small cars really increased; though the total number of accidents decreased. That means that the number of fatal small car accidents occured increased both in absolute and in proportional value, while C suggests to keep on producing high effeciency cars, but not small (eliminating them as dangerous) but large.

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

Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Posts: 356

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Location: Illinois

### Show Tags

21 Nov 2003, 08:46

The assumption that the executive is making is: If the car is fuel effecient, it has to be small.

In weaken the conclusion questions the answer choice that negate the asumption is the best choice.

C does just that.

B in fact support the executive's conclusion. It does not matter whther the number of accidents were less or high. What the choice is saying is that the number of fatalities have increased. That supports the executives concern

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 19 Oct 2003
Posts: 72

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

Location: USA

### Show Tags

22 Nov 2003, 22:23
chihao wrote:
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executiveтАЩs argument?
(A) Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
(B) Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
(D) Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
(E) Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.

Eventhough B is changed "Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has INCREASED" I don't think B is ok because "higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts" by itself include the probability issue.
_________________

I have 2 month for gmat.

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

Intern
Joined: 22 Apr 2014
Posts: 11

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

Re: Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2016, 06:28
i'm not sure, but C seems to be the right one.

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

Re: Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were   [#permalink] 08 Apr 2016, 06:28
Display posts from previous: Sort by