Last visit was: 21 Jul 2024, 08:39 It is currently 21 Jul 2024, 08:39
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: 505-555 Level,   Resolve Paradox,                  
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Current Student
Joined: 14 Nov 2016
Posts: 1171
Own Kudos [?]: 20977 [57]
Given Kudos: 926
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online)
GPA: 3.53
Send PM
Most Helpful Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64549 [28]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64549 [5]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1426
Own Kudos [?]: 4603 [1]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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
Joined: 11 Feb 2018
Posts: 297
Own Kudos [?]: 196 [2]
Given Kudos: 115
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
2
Kudos
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
Joined: 26 Dec 2017
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 86 [0]
Given Kudos: 109
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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
Director
Director
Joined: 09 Aug 2017
Posts: 686
Own Kudos [?]: 426 [1]
Given Kudos: 778
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
1
Kudos
(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
Joined: 14 Jan 2017
Posts: 102
Own Kudos [?]: 130 [0]
Given Kudos: 119
Location: India
Send PM
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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.
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Feb 2017
Posts: 1086
Own Kudos [?]: 2188 [0]
Given Kudos: 368
Location: Australia
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 560 Q41 V26
GMAT 2: 550 Q43 V23
GMAT 3: 650 Q47 V33
GMAT 4: 650 Q44 V36
GMAT 5: 600 Q38 V35
GMAT 6: 710 Q47 V41
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Send PM
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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
Joined: 11 Aug 2017
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 12
Send PM
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11479
Own Kudos [?]: 34494 [0]
Given Kudos: 323
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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.
LBS Moderator
Joined: 30 Oct 2019
Posts: 830
Own Kudos [?]: 789 [0]
Given Kudos: 1576
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
This is a paradox question.

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.

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.


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

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.


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

Speeds have no link to this argument.


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.

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


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

Not relevant to the argument. The argument is only based in Sabresia.
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Jan 2020
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 13 [0]
Given Kudos: 303
GMAT 1: 730 Q43 V42
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
(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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
Ibrahim13 wrote:
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



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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
Please can you explain why option B is the answer. Thank you

Posted from my mobile device
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
Ibrahim13 wrote:
Please can you explain why option B is the answer. Thank you

Posted from my mobile device



Actually this has been explained well in [url = https://gmatclub.com/forum/automobile-o ... l#p2198655] GMATNINJA's post[/url].

(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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Nov 2020
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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
VP
VP
Joined: 14 Aug 2019
Posts: 1347
Own Kudos [?]: 857 [0]
Given Kudos: 381
Location: Hong Kong
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V29
GPA: 3.81
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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.
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
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?
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Automobile ownership was rare in Sabresia as recently as 30 years ago, [#permalink]
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6990 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts