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

Question

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.

ID: 500266

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

GMATNinja · Answer

Here's a video explanation. Enjoy!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk0fVTnWch8

Kurtosis · Answer

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.

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

(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

redskull1 · Answer

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

tejyr · Answer

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

gvij2017 · Answer

(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

Radheya · Answer

The highlighted portions in red explain why answer choices A,C,D and E are incorrect.

dcummins · Answer

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.

keriyy · Answer

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

chetan2u · Answer

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.

AnirudhaS · Answer

This is a paradox question.

In fairness this is the closest answer choice, which might be close to the correct answer. However, this does not link how better roads relate to more accidents and less number of injuries.

Ok, this makes sense. Even if we have more accidents, if number of people travelling in the cars are just limited to the driver, then this relates to more accidents NOT related to higher number of injuries.

Speeds have no link to this argument.

Increase in average car age if anything might be inferred lower safety. Which should kind of link to higher injuries.

Not relevant to the argument. The argument is only based in Sabresia.

Andrewcoleman · Answer

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

Bridge an absolute number increase with a rate staying constant with another rate going in the opposite direction.

This is what B does.

Ibrahim13 · Answer

A is the correct answer. Because it has addressed the reason why deaths and injuries have not increased.

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

Posted from my mobile device

mSKR · Answer

A is not the right answer. A doesn't answer the question, why the death number didn't increase inspite of the  annual number of automobile accidents  has  increased significantly .
This is key of question to solve.

Only B answers this mystery.

Ibrahim13 · Answer

Please can you explain why option B is the answer. Thank you

Posted from my mobile device

mSKR · Answer

Actually this has been explained well in   GMATNINJA's post .

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

I can give my 2 cents here:

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

Ask yourself:
How is it possible that:
i. Number of cars increased
ii. number of accidents increased 
BUT, death rates DOESN'T INCREASE with same proportion?
What could be reasons?
1. High safety measures in cars ( cars hit but humans still can survive)
2. Number of people are less in cars ( before if accidents many people were involved but now only limited people because most people may drive car alone ? ( 
see the emphasis on word: DRASTICALLY

2nd is our B option.

Ibrahim13 · Answer

If 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. It doesn't address why deaths and injuries have not increased significantly.

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

mSKR · Answer

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

Do you have any other option that is even this close as B option?

Things would have been so easy if everything were addressed directly. Having said that, you don't need to prove 100% anything but just tick an option that, in general, tends to answer the question. ( assume everything is normal unless mentioned any exception in the argument)

Hope it is clear.

adimalhotra10 · Answer

I've read all the responses. 
I get why many answers have B as the answer choice -> the reasoning is comparing the increase in the number of accidents *significantly* vs reduction in average number of passengers *dramatically*. For me this is still not good enough.

I selected A because even though the number of accidents may increase but the intensity of the accident may not have increased because of better roads. After reading the comments I think I can still reject it because *10 years ago* makes it irrelevant.

I have rejected B because even if average number of passengers may come down from 4 to 2, what if the number of accidents per day go up from say 2 to 10. In these cases number of deaths and injuries may still increase.

Am I missing something with this thought process?

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

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards