Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built sma

i too think C is the right answer, We have to show that somehow efficiency can be achieved without making cars small

C clearly does it.

but there is one doubt , there is an assumption here that the small size of the car is the cause of more accidents , i think there is a correlation , but not a cause and effect relationship

C brings a new factor that has nothing to do with the weight issue that could resolve the problem. so making the aout maker urgument useless.

Focal point is rejection of guidelines to make fuel efficient cars.
C shows a way with which even large cars can be more fuel efficient.

Premise - had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts.

fatalities are more,not the number of accidents. Hence to reduce this, large cars are a must. Its indeed a co relation though.

whether fatalities or accident , the point of the assumption is that the cause is small size of the car, but that has not been proved,

the best answer is based on the logic, 'remove the cause and the effect ceases',which can not be applied here.

+1 C

B doesn't solve the problem related to fatalities.

C is my take.. As if large cars could be fuel efficient, then they could give both safety and economy..

A is incorrect as it talks about Large Automobiles and not Cars

auto executive has one deep pre-assumption in his mind that small car is the only way to make a fuel efficient car.

ok it is true that small cars are more accident prone than bigger cars- it is the premise, so we are not attacking it
but what about big cars can also be made more fuel efficient - choice c does that

Conclusion is -

For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.


it is a scope shift example in CR

recent guidlines just says to produce higher fuel efficient cars, it is the auto exec preassumption that there is only one way to achieve it by producing small cars

Could you clarify why it should not be A ?

The correct option must provide justification for supporting the guideline that requires high fuel efficiency.

Option A states that accidents are frequent in large cars even after 1977. The passage states 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. Therefore although the big cars had frequent fatal accidents, the small cars had even more. Therefore, it is not justifiable to make small cars ( i.e., more fuel efficient cars). Hence option A does not provide a justification for producing fuel efficient cars. Therefore option A is wrong.

Ans :- The author mistakenly assumes that the process of making any car fuel-efficient shall anyhow, involve reduction in length of the car, thereby increasing the chances of accident.The biggest objection will be an answer that proves this un-substantiated argument baseless.
Option "C"clearly highlights this option

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.

Type-weaken
The opposition is not really based earlier fuel efficiency increases, but rather on the fact that smaller cars appear to have brought more fatalities. The executive clearly presumes that any effort to increase fuel efficiency must include a reduction in size.

A. Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.- incorrect, This choice fails to weaken the argument, because the executive doesn’t claim that large cars are invulnerable
B. Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.- incorrect, strengthens the assertion that smaller cars are more dangerous; if the overall number of fatalities has decreased, and yet the number of smaller car based fatalities has increased, this means that the proportion of smaller car fatalities must have grown
C. New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.- Correct, If the new guidelines can be met even by larger cars, then this negates the executive’s premise about the safety of smaller cars and the associated increase in fatalities.
D. Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.- irrelevant, Regardless of the gains in efficiency, the argument in the stimulus is based on safety concerns.
E. Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since.- irrelevant

Answer C

Hi Experts,

I have doubt on choice C.

How do we know that large car with fuel efficiency standards would not lead to at least same level of accident-related fatalities as small car with fuel efficiency standards?

Please explain.

Thank you.

The executive is opposed to new guidelines requiring more fuel-efficient cars for a specific reason: "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."

This reasoning sets up a comparison between the fatalities involving smaller vehicles and those involving larger vehicles -- the important factor here is the size of the vehicle. The executive is arguing that the smaller size of the cars is related to the higher incidence of accident-related fatalities. The fact that these cars were built smaller in order to make them more fuel efficient is not directly tied to the safety of the vehicles. The executive is not saying that fuel-efficiency is inherently dangerous -- he/she is saying that smaller vehicles have a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities. There is no reason to believe that large, fuel-efficient cars would be more dangerous than large, fuel-inefficient gas hogs.

(C) tells us that fuel-efficient cars do not have to be small. This completely erodes the reasoning behind the executive's argument -- if large cars can meet the fuel efficiency standards, then the increased incidence of fatalities in smaller cars is irrelevant in considering whether to adopt the new guidelines. For this reason, (C) constitutes a strong objection to the executive's argument.

I hope that helps!

I also got C, but I'm not sure why A and B are wrong.

The correct answer will pose a strong objection to the executive's argument against producing fuel efficient cars.


The executive's argument sets up a comparison between incidence of accident-related fatalities in smaller cars after 1977 and that of their larger counterparts before 1977. Relative to one another, we know that the smaller post-1977 cars had a higher incidence than did the larger, pre-1977 cars.

However, that doesn't tell us anything about what the actual fatality rates are for either type of vehicle. (A) tells us that large car were "frequently" involved in accidents that cause death/serious injury, but doesn't give us any information about the frequency of such accidents involving smaller vehicles. Perhaps smaller cars post-1977 were very frequently involved in fatal accidents.

We can't infer from (A) that the executive's argument is impacted at all -- he/she argues that smaller cars are less safe than larger ones, and (A) does not address this comparison.

Eliminate (A).

The executive believes that in 1977, in order to make cars more fuel efficient, the size was reduced. But this reduction led to higher fatalities. Now, guidelines prescribe to build more fuel efficient cars. But thus Executive is assuming that to increase the fuel efficiency, car size needs to be reduced (which will lead to increase in accidents). Hence he opposes.

C - There is another way to make cars more fuel efficient and meet the guidelines. No need to reduce the size. This negates the logic of the executive.

Also, A talks about "automobiles" and the argument is about cars !!