It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 04:41

### 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 266

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2007, 20:59
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:02) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 2 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 executiveâ€™s 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 [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 167

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2007, 21:36

Kudos [?]: 103 [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1553

Kudos [?]: 204 [1], given: 1

Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10

### Show Tags

13 Jan 2007, 23:17
1
KUDOS
AK47 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.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.

The argument assumes that only small cars can be made fuel-efficient and because small cars are dangerous, the production of fuel-efficient cars need to be stopped.

C refutes the argument by establishing that even larger(read safer) cars can be made fuel-efficient. There is no reason to oppose the guidelines.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 204 [1], given: 1

Director
Affiliations: FRM Charter holder
Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 726

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 4

Schools: Stanford, Chicago Booth, Babson College

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 00:29
AK47 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.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.

The argument assumes that only small cars can be made fuel-efficient and because small cars are dangerous, the production of fuel-efficient cars need to be stopped.

C refutes the argument by establishing that even larger(read safer) cars can be made fuel-efficient. There is no reason to oppose the guidelines.

yep..one more C.

Kudos [?]: 96 [0], given: 4

Director
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 743

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Location: Dallas, Texas

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 00:52
C !
_________________

"Education is what remains when one has forgotten everything he learned in school."

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 409

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 10:23
Somehow I like B.
The reasoning given is---> since small cars were involved in fatalities, we should stop making them
The objection here is even though small cars were involved in fatalities, the number of accidents were less than large cars

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Posts: 83

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 14:03
I would go with b because the executive doesn't want to make smaller cars b/c they cause more faulities. The answer to the question is going to say that he should buy smaller cars or that larger cars shouldn't be brought either

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Posts: 71

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Location: India

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 17:34
I go with C..Concur with NC prasad's explanation!

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Posts: 388

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

Location: Boston, MA

### Show Tags

14 Jan 2007, 17:55
C for me.

Kudos [?]: 140 [0], given: 0

14 Jan 2007, 17:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by