GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 22 Mar 2019, 11:29

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

Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

 
Senior SC Moderator
User avatar
V
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1319
Location: Malaysia
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2018, 06:58
2
11
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  15% (low)

Question Stats:

80% (01:48) correct 20% (01:49) wrong based on 813 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

GMAT® Official Guide Verbal Review 2019

Practice Question
Question No.:
Online test bank question number : CR03826

Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, but with continuing growth of personal income there, automobile ownership has become steadily more common. Consequently, there are now far more automobiles on Sabresia's roads than there were 30 years ago, and the annual number of automobile accidents has increased significantly. Yet the annual number of deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents have not increased significantly?

(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago.

(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically.

(C) The increases in traffic volume have been most dramatic on Sabresia's highways, where speeds are well above those of other roads.

(D) Because of a vigorous market in used cars, the average age of cars on the road has actually increased throughout the years of steady growth in automobile ownership.

(E) Automobile ownership is still much less common in Sabresia than it is in other countries.

_________________

"Be challenged at EVERY MOMENT."

“Strength doesn’t come from what you can do. It comes from overcoming the things you once thought you couldn’t.”

"Each stage of the journey is crucial to attaining new heights of knowledge."

Rules for posting in verbal forum | Please DO NOT post short answer in your post!

Advanced Search : https://gmatclub.com/forum/advanced-search/

SC Moderator
User avatar
D
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1686
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT 1: 200 Q1 V1
GPA: 4
WE: Analyst (Retail)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2018, 07:34
Question Type: Explain/Paradox

Argument: Despite the increase in the number of automobiles, annual number of deaths and injuries from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago. - Irrelevant. We are now worried when Sabresia's roads were completed as it doesn't connect to the deaths or injuries resulting from accidents.

(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically. - Correct. Since the average number of passengers in a car has decreased the number of people who get injured or die from an accident will also decrease.

(C) The increases in traffic volume have been most dramatic on Sabresia's highways, where speeds are well above those of other roads. - Out of context. Doesn't connect to the road accidents in any way.

(D) Because of a vigorous market in used cars, the average age of cars on the road has actually increased throughout the years of steady growth in automobile ownership. - Out of context. We do not know how age of cars relate to accidents.

(E) Automobile ownership is still much less common in Sabresia than it is in other countries. - Irrelevant. Same reason as the reason for other incorrect choices.

Answer: B
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 258
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Jun 2018, 07:43
1
B is the answer.It is not perfect but the best of the lot.I am finding this trend(answers that are not perfect)increasingly in these new questions.Experts can you confirm..?

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Posts: 158
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Jun 2018, 11:18
Although I selected B as answer , I need a small clarification regarding A.
In A we have been told that roads changes in view of increased traffic were done >10y ago.
I think it also helps us in resolving paradox but I think issue is with this >10y ago
Let me know if my conception is correct in eliminating A
_________________

--If you like my post pls give kudos

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 327
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Jun 2018, 01:36
(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically.

Number of car ownership increased along with no of car accidents but average number of passengers in car on the road reduced drastically, thereby only slight increasing of the annual number of injuries.

B is correct choice here.
B
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 55
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, General Management
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Oct 2018, 03:05
hazelnut wrote:
GMAT® Official Guide Verbal Review 2019

Practice Question
Question No.:
Online test bank question number : CR03826

Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, but with continuing growth of personal income there, automobile ownership has become steadily more common. Consequently, there are now far more automobiles on Sabresia's roads than there were 30 years ago, and the annual number of automobile accidents has increased significantly. Yet the annual number of deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents have not increased significantly?

(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago. This choice is irrelevant and does not explain why significant of automobiles accidents has not led any increase in serious injuries.

(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically. As the average number of people in a car have decreased, the possibility that many of them getting serious injuries will also decrease.

(C) The increases in traffic volume have been most dramatic on Sabresia's highways, where speeds are well above those of other roads. Comparison of speeds on highways and other road is irrelevant.

(D) Because of a vigorous market in used cars, the average age of cars on the road has actually increased throughout the years of steady growth in automobile ownership. Average age of cars is irrelevant here.

(E) Automobile ownership is still much less common in Sabresia than it is in other countries. This comparison is also irrelevant.


The highlighted portions in red explain why answer choices A,C,D and E are incorrect.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 122
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GPA: 2.61
WE: Management Consulting (Consulting)
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2018, 02:51
Vyshak wrote:
Question Type: Explain/Paradox

Argument: Despite the increase in the number of automobiles, annual number of deaths and injuries from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago. - Irrelevant. We are now worried when Sabresia's roads were completed as it doesn't connect to the deaths or injuries resulting from accidents.

(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically. - Correct. Since the average number of passengers in a car has decreased the number of people who get injured or die from an accident will also decrease.

Answer: B



I wouldn't say it's "irrelevant" and to be honest I find it funny that you've taken a step in logic in your justification for (b) but you haven't for (a).

From what I've learned, Coexist is the key word to remember when solving these types of questions. The correct answer choice must allow both conditions to coexist and (a) doesn't do this, in fact it's more a 180.

In fact if roads were improved 10 years ago you'd expect the number of accidents to decrease.

(b) implies that there were more people per car in the past than there is now and these people whom were once sharing are now driving their own cars, so logically with more cars on the road you would expect the incidence of accidents to increase.

The difficulty with (B) is linking the fact that the incidence of death and injuries has not increased significantly compared to the incidence of automobile accidents.

So it's best to presume that the severity of accidents hasn't increased unless stated by the stem.
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Posts: 1
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Dec 2018, 02:20
Although I selected "C" , I can somewhat understand why it's incorrect (talking about traffic volume for highways vs other roads. I initially thought that more traffic on highways would equal lower speeds, and less deaths and injuries. But that logic is a bit of a stretch).

I'm unable to gauge the reasoning in "B". Any insight would be greatly appreciated (and possibly why each answer is correct/incorrect, because there seems to be some vacillation between A, B, and C). Thank you.

Tagging: GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2329
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2018, 20:05
1
hazelnut wrote:
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, but with continuing growth of personal income there, automobile ownership has become steadily more common. Consequently, there are now far more automobiles on Sabresia's roads than there were 30 years ago, and the annual number of automobile accidents has increased significantly. Yet the annual number of deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

Over the past 30 years, more and more Sabresians have become car owners. As a result, there are now far more cars on Sabresia's roads than there were 30 years ago. This is a pretty straightforward story, but then we see two observations that contradict each other:

  • The annual number of automobile accidents has increased significantly.
  • The annual number of deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

Quote:
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents have not increased significantly?

We're asked to explain this paradox. How can there be significantly more accidents without significantly more deaths and injuries?

It's a fact that the number of accidents has gone up significantly. So what we're trying to explain, specifically, is why the number of deaths and injuries hasn't gone up to the same degree. Let's go through the choices and eliminate anything that doesn't provide this specific explanation.

Quote:
(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago.

What does this have to do with the growing number of deaths and injuries? This is an answer choice that sounds really good but doesn't stand up to logical examination. If we try to follow the logic, here's where we end up:

  • Over 10 years ago, Sabresia did virtually everything it could to accommodate increased traffic on roads.
  • This implies that roads were made generally safer for auto traffic. But wait a minute... it's still a fact that the number of auto accidents increased significantly. All of the improvements that were made by Sabresia didn't do anything to stop this increase. So choice (A) basically tells us that the number of accidents has increased significantly, despite Sabresia's best efforts to accommodate increased traffic.
  • We are still missing an explanation for why the number of deaths and injuries resulting from auto accidents didn't go up at the same time. It's tempting to wave our hands and say "somehow the improvements stopped deaths and injuries from going up!" -- but the "somehow" remains a complete mystery.

We're no closer to identifying why, despite the increases in accidents, there has been no matching increase in deaths and injuries. So eliminate (A) and move on.

Quote:
(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically.

This choice addresses the paradox by giving us new information about the number of people who might be in any given auto accident. We now know that the number of passengers in a car has dropped dramatically.

This is very helpful information. It means that in the past, a single accident would have impacted many people (e.g., 2 cars with 4 people in each car = 8 potential injuries or deaths). Today, a single accident would impact relatively few people (e.g., 2 cars with just 1 person in each car = 2 potential injuries or deaths).

I'm only using numbers here to clarify the logic. We're not going to write out formulas and mathematical projections here to prove that the reduction in average number of passengers was dramatic enough to literally result in fewer injuries and deaths. We couldn't possibly do this without even more information about number of accidents, probability of suffering injury or death from accidents, and all kinds of things that we simply don't know.

That's fine! We were asked which choice most helps to explain the paradox. And choice (B) is doing the best job of this so far, because it gives us a concrete reason why the number of deaths and injuries resulting from auto accidents has not increased significantly. That reason is that accidents now involve dramatically fewer people, on average.

This is enough to keep (B) around, and move on with elimination.

Quote:
(C) The increases in traffic volume have been most dramatic on Sabresia's highways, where speeds are well above those of other roads.

This choice makes the paradox even more confusing. If the most dramatic increases in traffic volume took place where Sabresians are driving faster than they do on less congested roads, then we'd expect to see even more injuries and deaths resulting from accidents.

Yet, we know that the number of injuries and deaths resulting from accidents hasn't gone up significantly. (C) isn't giving us the explanation we need (quite the opposite). So we'll eliminate it.

Quote:
(D) Because of a vigorous market in used cars, the average age of cars on the road has actually increased throughout the years of steady growth in automobile ownership.

What does the average age of cars have to do with why and how car accidents result in injury and death?

Nothing. Choice (D) has nothing to do with the paradox we're trying to explain. Eliminate it.

Quote:
(E) Automobile ownership is still much less common in Sabresia than it is in other countries.

As with choice (D), this answer choice gives us no useful information to explain the specific paradox we're trying to resolve. Comparing rates of auto ownership in Sabresia vs. other countries has nothing to do with the rate of deaths and injuries resulting from auto accidents inside Sabresia. Eliminate (E).

Choice (B) is not a magic bullet, but it does much, much more to explain the paradox than any other answer choices available. So let's not lose any more sleep on this question, stick with (B), and move on.

I hope this helps!
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | Instagram | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7431
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2018, 20:16
hazelnut wrote:
GMAT® Official Guide Verbal Review 2019

Practice Question
Question No.:
Online test bank question number : CR03826

Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, but with continuing growth of personal income there, automobile ownership has become steadily more common. Consequently, there are now far more automobiles on Sabresia's roads than there were 30 years ago, and the annual number of automobile accidents has increased significantly. Yet the annual number of deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents has not increased significantly.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain why deaths and injuries resulting from automobile accidents have not increased significantly?

(A) Virtually all of the improvements in Sabresia's roads that were required to accommodate increased traffic were completed more than ten years ago.

(B) With more and more people owning cars, the average number of passengers in a car on the road has dropped dramatically.

(C) The increases in traffic volume have been most dramatic on Sabresia's highways, where speeds are well above those of other roads.

(D) Because of a vigorous market in used cars, the average age of cars on the road has actually increased throughout the years of steady growth in automobile ownership.

(E) Automobile ownership is still much less common in Sabresia than it is in other countries.


Of course GMATNinja has explained it well...
Just a point ..

Now we talk of more ACCIDENTS and still no change in accident related DEATHS and INJURIES .

So, we are discussing two different areas, thus a shift in scope.

What are we looking at then - lesser deaths/injuries per accident.
How can this happen??
1) if safety features in each car have increased dramatically, resulting in lesser injuries and deaths per accident.
2) there are lesser number of people involved in each accident.

Choice B talks of option (2) and hence is correct.
_________________

1) Absolute modulus : http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
2)Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html
3) effects of arithmetic operations : https://gmatclub.com/forum/effects-of-arithmetic-operations-on-fractions-269413.html
4) Base while finding % increase and % decrease : https://gmatclub.com/forum/percentage-increase-decrease-what-should-be-the-denominator-287528.html


GMAT Expert

GMAT Club Bot
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,   [#permalink] 28 Dec 2018, 20:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago,

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.