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

 It is currently 16 Aug 2018, 18:29

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

RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5124
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 10:05
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

66% (01:35) correct 34% (01:39) wrong based on 383 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Between 1997 and 2005, Graynold Motors sold cars with a certain defect. One in 2,500 former Graynold car owners suffered injury or property damage during the years Graynolds were sold with that particular defect. Attorneys representing former Graynold automobile owners filed a lawsuit against Graynold, claiming that Graynold must have known about the defect, and that Graynold should be liable for the injuries and property damage before the defect was announced.

The answer to each of the following questions would be helpful in evaluating the attorneys’ claim EXCEPT:

A) What is the typical rate of injury or property damage among owners of cars other than Graynolds?

B) What was the rate of injury or property damage among owners of Graynolds before this particular defect?

C) Have the defective Graynold automobiles negatively impacted the network of independent auto mechanics that specialize in repairing Graynolds?

D)Can normal automobile wear and tear cause the same general outcome as that associated with the defect?

E) What fraction of the injuries and property damage is associated with the particular defect in question?

Day 8 Question of the Verbal Contest:GMAT Club RATT Race

_________________
Intern
Joined: 27 Feb 2014
Posts: 25
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 11:46
D for me because if wear and tear can cause the same damage than it's not necessarry that the defect itself caused the injury or damage.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 91
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 450 Q27 V21
GPA: 3.47
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 12:21
A) What is the typical rate of injury or property damage among owners of cars other than Graynolds?
We are comparing different companies here and this could support the argument

B) What was the rate of injury or property damage among owners of Graynolds before this particular defect?
comparing damage before and after the defective cars were sold-helping the argument

C) Have the defective Graynold automobiles negatively impacted the network of independent auto mechanics that specialize in repairing Graynolds?
This has nothing to do with the argument and might not help the lawyers argument that Graynold should be liable for the injuries

D)Can normal automobile wear and tear cause the same general outcome as that associated with the defect?
if normal cars's wear and tear is the same as the defective one then this wont help us but if different then the company should be liable for the damage

E) What fraction of the injuries and property damage is associated with the particular defect in question?
self- explanatory helping the lawyers argument
_________________

1) Kaplanprep 450 Q27 V21
2) Manhattan 530 Q35 V28
3) GmatPrep 450 Q33, V19
4) Veritas 460 Q31, V23
5) Veritas 440 Q 30, V21
6) Veritas 500 Q34, V 25
7) Gmat 420 Q27, V23
8) Veritas 520 Q36, V26 2/2
9) Veritas 540 Q37, V28 4/19
10)Manhattan 560 Q40, V28 4/28

Current Student
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 344
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 13:44
The answer is pretty obvious I thought, but I spent way too much time trying to understand the paragraph - I missed the word "before" on the first reading. Definitely not winning today.
Intern
Joined: 18 Feb 2016
Posts: 7
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

22 Apr 2016, 18:19
Lawyers should ask questions that will help their client. All but one question are supporting that.
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1162
Location: India
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Apr 2016, 00:20
Between 1997 and 2005, Graynold Motors sold cars with a certain defect.
One in 2,500 former Graynold car owners suffered injury or property damage during the years Graynolds were sold with that particular defect.
Attorneys representing former Graynold automobile owners filed a lawsuit against Graynold, claiming
that Graynold must have known about the defect, and
that Graynold should be liable for the injuries and property damage before the defect was announced.

The answer to each of the following questions would be helpful in evaluating the attorneys’ claim EXCEPT:

A) What is the typical rate of injury or property damage among owners of cars other than Graynolds?............if there is any damage due to external factors such as weather conditions or calamities, that helps to know the cause behind the damage.

B) What was the rate of injury or property damage among owners of Graynolds before this particular defect?.............if the rate of injury among owners of Graynolds before this defect is known then we can estimate damage due to this defective product alone by removing original damage for consideration.

C) Have the defective Graynold automobiles negatively impacted the network of independent auto mechanics that specialize in repairing Graynolds?...............defects can increase repairs thereby benefiting them and even if not this is help us verify car owners claim

D)Can normal automobile wear and tear cause the same general outcome as that associated with the defect?............if yes then no special damage occurred because of defect. If no car owners claim seems to justify.

E) What fraction of the injuries and property damage is associated with the particular defect in question? This can help us to understand the problem.

Biggest aspect to be considered................this is an EXCEPT question
We have 4 heros 1 villain............................we like baddie Damon Salvatore here.
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Director
Joined: 08 Jun 2015
Posts: 530
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V29
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Apr 2016, 10:34
Except ruined it ... Nice question though
_________________

" The few , the fearless "

Manager
Status: One Last Shot !!!
Joined: 04 May 2014
Posts: 246
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 630 Q44 V32
GMAT 2: 680 Q47 V35
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

24 Apr 2016, 19:46
The 'EXCEPTs' dont seem to really bother me much now-a-days. Whenever i come across one, i pretend its not there and mark the 'wrong' answer choice

Nonetheless, this question is testing a typical CR concept bigger than our Except- 'Causality'.

"The defect caused the injuries and damage"

Anything that gives alternate cause or weakens this causality is a wrong choice.

In short, a fine 700 contender with all the ingredients- Evaluate, Weaken, Causal and EXCEPT
_________________

One Kudos for an everlasting piece of knowledge is not a bad deal at all...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
-Mark Twain

Current Student
Joined: 29 Jul 2015
Posts: 64
Location: Australia
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.25
WE: Business Development (Energy and Utilities)
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Apr 2016, 04:47
Nice question.. always fret over the except questions.
MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5124
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Apr 2016, 09:20
EMPOWERgmat Official Explanation
Type: Evaluate EXCEPT
Boil It Down: Defect, Sales down
Missing Information: No other factors
Goal: Since this is an Evaluate EXCEPT question, we’re looking for the one option that would NOT help us evaluate the attorneys’ claim.
Analysis: The attorneys are trying to make the case that the defect caused the subsequent drop in sales. However, here’s the biggest problem of all: how do we know that this defect was even directly connected with these injuries and this property damage? From this prompt, no. For that matter, how do we know that there weren’t any other factors? Or perhaps, that volume of damage or injury is actually normal, or even potentially less than normal.

(A) What is the typical rate of injury or property damage among owners of cars other than Graynolds?
This question would be useful to ask since it would help us determine if this particular rate of injury or property damage were unusual relative to cars in general. If the rates were on par, then it could be challenging to make the case that anything exceptional occurred during those years. Conversely, if the rate of incidents were higher for Graynolds, then that could help support the notion that Graynold is liable. What should we do with this option? Remember that the question is essentially asking us to find the option that is NOT helpful to investigate. Since this option is helpful to evaluate the attorneys’ claim, we can get rid of it.

(B) What was the rate of injury or property damage among owners of Graynolds before this particular defect?
This option raises another helpful question to evaluate the attorneys’ claim that Graynold could be liable. If it turned out that the rate of injury prior to these defects were lower, then that could point to fault. However, if it weren’t that could make it more challenging to affirm the attorneys’ claim. Since this option is helpful to explore as well, we can get rid of it too.

(C) Have the defective Graynold automobiles negatively impacted the network of independent auto mechanics that specialize in repairing Graynolds?
This option raises the issue of how independent auto mechanics were impacted by the defects. How on earth would that help us evaluate the claim the Graynold is liable for these injuries or defects? This option raises a consideration entirely useless to us, and therefore this is the RIGHT option since this option is the exception. It is not helpful to evaluate.

(D) Can normal automobile wear and tear cause the same general outcome as that associated with the defect?
This option is essentially option A rephrased. This option helps us establish a baseline of comparison to see whether nature of the injuries and damage during those defective years really was exceptional. If it were, then the attorneys would have a stronger case. If not, then the force of the case could be weakened. Since this option is also helpful for us to evaluate the attorneys’ claim, we can get rid of it too.

(E) What fraction of the injuries and property damage is associated with the particular defect in question?
This is really the most important question to ask of all: point blank, was this defect directly responsible for these injuries and property damage? If no, then the case is ridiculous. If yes, then the case is dramatically strengthened. Since this option is very useful to ask, it’s definitely gone.

A, B, D, and E are all useful to ask. Only C is the exception, and therefore our correct option.

_________________
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1854
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

30 Jun 2017, 13:36
Although this is an assumption question, the scope is more flexible than any other assumption questions.
Evidently, all A,B,D,E still have the scope. It is because the conclusion can holds true if other possibilities are eliminated. Other possibilities are still in the scope.
Only C is out of scope.
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1854
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005  [#permalink]

Show Tags

23 Nov 2017, 05:18
there is a similar question, but that question is for SC.
Stuck with C and E.
E talks about the percentage of "injuries and property damage".
The statement can be misinterpreted. C basically claims that defective cars could not be repaired.
Re: RATT Race: Between 1997 and 2005 &nbs [#permalink] 23 Nov 2017, 05:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Events & Promotions

 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®.