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

 It is currently 16 Dec 2019, 04:22

### 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

# City official: In states where parallel parking is

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

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 30 May 2019
Posts: 109
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 09 Jul 2019, 00:45
1
In evaluate the argument questions, we need to find option which can either strengthen or weaken depending on opposite answers to it (YES/NO).
Let's break down the argument first. Conclusion here is "Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety". Why or how the author has arrived to such conclusion is given by "it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety". All in all, author tries to say that in states where there is no parallel parking element, fewer accidents observed, while in states with this element required, more accidents happen. Thus, do not keep this element, finishes off the argument. Now, we need to ask a question that will help us answer if it is good idea to remove or not. Let's apply Variance test to couple of options.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking - Lets answer NO first. If not significant portion of drivers use parallel parking in states with no such element, then accidents must be less frequent in such states. This weakens authors conclusion. Now lets answer YES to this question. If many people use parallel parking in states where it is NOT required element of the test, then in such states accidents are not common, then city officials removal of the parallel parking is justified. As we see, we observe an opposite case now. Thus D holds variance test and is our answer

For the sake of learning purpose, lets apply Variance test to another option:
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Ok, lets answer YES, if all parking related accidents are reported to authorities, then we still can't touch the conclusion because we do NOT know the number of those accidents. IF number is small, then we have one case, if number is big, then another. Now, Lets answer NO to this question. If not all cases are reported and say 1 out of 10 is not reported, we still can't touch the conclusion because we do not know total number of accidents (or rather proportion of it related to parallel parking). Thus E is not our answer.
I will mark D and move one

Originally posted by mira93 on 08 Jul 2019, 09:05.
Last edited by mira93 on 09 Jul 2019, 00:45, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 24 Jun 2019
Posts: 113
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:05
1
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

City official claims that parell parking TEST is counter productive BECAUSE staes with test have high parallel parking accidents. We need to evaluate whether parellel parking test is really the CAUSE for accidents or is it something else. (Correlation is not causation)

Discarded options are prefixed with X.

X(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
>>The fact that some states removed the test does not tell us about cause of accidents. We dont even know before and after accident figures of those states.

X(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
>>Whether accidents occur during poor lighting does not tell us about the impact of parallel parking test of accidents.

X(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
>>At first this seemed to make sense. But, even if the driver at fault is not the one parallel parking, it will only tell us about the skill of other drivers, not about the impact of parellel parking test on accidents. (I am not sure about this one though. I am confused between C and D)

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
>>If the states where there is no test for PP, dont have parallel parking element in the first place (maybe because there are not many crowded urban areas), then it would establish that the reasoning of the city official is flawed. Accidents in stated with test are higher because there is more parallel parking in that state. Maybe lack of test would increase the accident%.

THIS IS CORRECT CHOICE

X(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
>> Even if they are not reported, it would not tell us impact of the test. They would not be reported in all states maybe. It does not make sense that only states with exam report accidents and states without exam dont report accidents.

(Although I was confued between C and D - D seems to better evaluate the officials reasoning in my opinion)
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2019
Posts: 3
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:08
without looking at answers try to guess the answer.its very logical to think that in states without parallel parking in license test people dont parallel park mostly,they will do type of apraking

option D
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Dec 2015
Posts: 447
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:09
2
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

Analysis:
Cause --> effect
City-A: parallel parking in driving test ---> 7% accident related to parallel parking
City-B: no parallel parking in driving test ---> ~0 accident related to parallel parking
Conclusion by City Official: parallel parking should be removed from driving test in City-A
Which case it should not remove the parallel parking from driving test?
case-1: if two city's parkings aren't similar i.e city-B doesn't have many parallel parkings, but city-A has, then removing parallel parking from city-B's driving test might increase the parallel parking related accident

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element --> we can't conclude from this that city-B should remove the parallel parking from driving test
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision --> this should be the case for both the cities
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park --> this should be the case for both the cities
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking --> correct: matches w/ the analysis
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities --> reporting to the authorities is not the concern
Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 145
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
WE: Project Management (Manufacturing)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:24
2
IMO-D

States
1)Where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams-
Stats- Accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%

2)where parallel parking is not required element of driver licensing exams
Stats- Negligible number of parallel parking related incidents

Conclusion (City Officials)-parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety---So be removed

Reasoning is based on--- Comparison between the two type of states and number of accidents.

Pre Thinking-- What if state where parallel parking is not required element doesn't have significant portion of parking as parallel parking. in that cases no. of accidents reported in these will be lower & that will weaken the line of reasoning (comparison between the two states) used by official..

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element--- Incorrect---whether previously parallel parking element was present or not doesn't effect the line of reasoning.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision---Incorrect--- Time reference immaterial to conclusion.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park--- Incorrect---- though a good choice, but not a part of reasoning as stated in prethinking.
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking-- Correct-- Along the line of prethinking.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities----Incorrect---Not related to line of reasoning...same case can be for both states
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2014
Posts: 220
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, International Business
GPA: 3.97
WE: Engineering (Education)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:28
The arguments concludes that the test should be removed based on the premises that the percent of cases is more in the state where test is applicable. The conclusion is based on the assumption that the individual who has passed the test only parks the vehicle.

Hence, C is correct.
Manager
Joined: 18 Feb 2017
Posts: 93
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:37
IMO E.

Premise: States having parallel parking evaluation in the driving exam have 7% incidents. The ones not having it in for evaluation have negligible %.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element -> Irrelevant. Wouldn't weaken or strengthen the author's claim.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision -> Out of scope.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park -> color=#ff0000]Irrelevant. Wouldn't weaken or strengthen the author's claim. [/color]
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking -> The number of accidents would still not be negligible.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities. Correct. If it is not reported, the data given could not be accurate.
Intern
Joined: 17 Aug 2016
Posts: 39
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:45
1
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element but later removed the element- It doesn't evaluate the line of reasoning.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision- NO
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park- No
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking- It evaluates the line of reasoning.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities- No

IMO. the correct answer is (d)
Manager
Joined: 09 Apr 2017
Posts: 80
GPA: 3.99
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:48
2
conclusion:
Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Premise:
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
Although this strengthen the argument but it is insuffice to use as evaluation whether to remove the parallel parking element.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is not relevant to parallel parking, even if it is relevant, the poor conditions will affect both parallel parking and non- parallel parking. -Irrelevent-

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
We are refering to cases of drivers involve in the parallel parking and not others individuals. -Out of Scope-

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
what if most of the parkings in these not-required states do not use the parallel-parking system?
Clearly, the situation will then be different for both states.
Therefore, we need to evaluate the number of parallel-parking system that are use in these not-required states.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
The scope should be limited within the provided data of 7% as stated in the premise.

D wins.
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2016
Posts: 19
Location: India
GMAT 1: 610 Q48 V27
GPA: 3.99
WE: Web Development (Computer Software)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 09:50
1
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities

Prethinking- Conclusion is We should remove parallel parking from test as not helpful.
Reasoning - some states having paralell parking in test has parallel parking related accidents records where as states having no parallel parking in test have no accident records due to parallel parking.
This is an evaluate question. Lets try to pre-think.
What if the states having no parallel parking in test has some scene/ or rules where they actually dont need to do parallel parking by themselves. In that case we can not claim that parallel parking is not useful. rather, those states can have parallel parking related accidents if those rules/scenes are not in place.

Choice D states the same.
Senior Manager
Joined: 18 Jan 2018
Posts: 304
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
Schools: Booth '22, ISB '21, IIMB
GPA: 3.87
WE: Design (Manufacturing)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 10:07
1
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - Incorrect
This doesn't answer the reasoning , each case could be for different reasons

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision-Incorrect
Not concerned about accidents , out of scope

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park-Incorrect
car is driven only by one person , silly reasoning

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking-Correct
If we get answer for this question , then we do get answers to evaluate our passage .

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities-Incorrect
Out of scope
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2018
Posts: 79
Location: India
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 10:22
1
Let's deconstruct the argument-
States where parallel parking is reqd. have 7% accident due to it vs. negligible in states where it is not required. (PREMISE)
Hence, remove parallel parking from test as it is unsafe. (CONCLUSION)

Question type is evaluate argument so we need to find an answer that will have two possible paths— one way will strengthen the author’s claim, and the other way will weaken it.

1. Whether states had element but later removed or not does not change how much parallel parking is counterproductive to driver safety. A
2. Accident due to poor lighting is possible but out of scope here. B
3. If accident happened while parking or due to improper parking either way parallel parking is not safe. C
4. If D is true then parallel parking makes drivers safe (weakens conclusion), and if false it should be removed because it is unsafe (strengthens conclusion). D
5. Even if not all incidents are reported, parallel parking will stay unsafe. E

Hence IMO D is the answer
Manager
Joined: 12 Jul 2017
Posts: 217
Location: India
GMAT 1: 570 Q43 V26
GMAT 2: 690 Q50 V32
GPA: 3.6
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Jul 2019, 10:36
2
The argument's conclusion is based on causality that the test is causing these accidents. ( Casually speaking)
Now, the argument simply compares this to another city where there is no test and no accident.
Basically here, we need to challenge the test. So how possibly can we challenge the test, in light of given information that in a city where there is no test of parking no accident is there?

What if the city in which parking test is not there but parking exists and still the accident is NEGLIGIBLE, our belief gets bolstered that there is something in the test that is leading to these accidents. On the other hand, in the other city, the parallel parking itself is not present then obviously in that city there is NO parallel parking, then reasoning the conclusion on the basis that in other city if there is no parking test there is negligible accident becomes QUESTIONABLE.
So our answer should revolve around this scenario.

A. The basis of the argument is about current context. This option would have been valid and useful if we knew about the accident rates in the past. But no such information is given, so knowing whether it was revoked or not would not help evaluate. ELIMINATE this answer.

B. I had a doubt regarding "related accidents". But even if we assume that it is parallel-parking related accidents, then it is applicable to BOTH the countries. When we say that THESE ACCIDENTS occured WHEN there was DIM light and drivers could not see properly, then we draw a correlation, which might be thought of a CONTRIBUTING cause. The causality of the test and the accidents is not questioned.
Also the related accidents could be "parking-related" accidents. If that is the case, we clearly can eliminate this because the scope of the argument is parallel parking related accidents.

Even if we apply VARIANCE test and say that primarily they occured during day. So we eliminate a cause, then we have a belief that it could be because of these tests, and if we say YES, it happened during night, then also our claim is strengthened because the night factor is constant, and both place will have it.

C. This is also not our answer, however I was stuck at this for a while, because this option says that the driver was ATTEMPTING the parallel parking. Now there could again be two causes to the accident here- 1) The driver himself/herself was at fault 2) The faulty test could have led to it ( because we know that the test's country has higher rate). Since, this option still does not question the causality of the test, we can ignore this.

D - This is possibly the answer. Because we know that in a country where test is NOT there and yet people park and still the accidents are negligible, then it gives us a sort of belief that the test might have caused. And if they don't park parallely, then obviiously the accidents would be negligible. Then saying that the test is not valid is a bit questionable. Based on this reasoning, I marked this answer. I HOPE I AM CORRECT

E. Even if they are not, per the reasoning the causality stands. And if it is, well the causality is strengthened. This option fails the variance test. So I eliminated it.

Regards,
Rishav

Originally posted by rish2708 on 08 Jul 2019, 10:32.
Last edited by rish2708 on 08 Jul 2019, 10:36, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 21 Jan 2019
Posts: 100
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 10:32
Quote:
City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities

A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element :Correct : as states realised that it was counterproductive and hence they removed it.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's visionIrrelevant
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel parkeven if the person who has already parked the car in a parallel parking setup is at fault, it undermines the test taken
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking Irrelevant
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authoritiesIrrelevant

Option A is the answer
BSchool Moderator
Joined: 07 Dec 2018
Posts: 148
Location: India
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 10:49
Premise : In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents.

Conclusion : Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Is parallel parking really counter-productive? What more info can strengthen/weaken the argument?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element.
Let's say some had and removed. Some didn't have at all. Will this help? I don't think so.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision.
This suggests that perhaps we don't need to remove the parallel parking element but rather we need to fix something else. In that case, we should keep the element. Helpful. Let's keep.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park.
Was it the driver trying to parallel park or the other party who got involved in an accident was at fault? Will this help? Whose fault?

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking.
Confusing. Let's break it down: Whether a significant portion of the parking in states is parallel parking. Which states? : where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam. Doesn't seem helpful.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Absolutely irrelevant.

Between B & C, B looks fine to me.

I would choose (B)
Intern
Joined: 06 Jul 2018
Posts: 31
Location: India
Schools: ISB '21
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V33
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:05
In my opinion it would be relevant to evaluate whether the states which do not have a parallel parking element did earlier.
Manager
Joined: 06 Aug 2018
Posts: 97
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:08
Contenders were straightaway A and E

So when we evaluate them :
(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

THERE CAN BE OTHER REASONS TOO FOR REMOVING FOR REMOVING ELEMENT OF TEST BY OTHER COUNTRIES ,WE CANT IMPLY SAME REASON TO IT .

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities

THIS OPTIONS CLEARS THE GAP , THERE CAN BE CASES WHERE MANY ACCIDENTS ARE NOT REPORTED

WINNER IS E !!!!

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2019
Posts: 112
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Jul 2019, 13:55
1
There may be no parallel parking elements in drivers' life in one country.
That's why there are no accidents.
But this fact is not helpful for the country in which there are parallel parking elements

The answer is D

Posted from my mobile device

Originally posted by Vigasimrair on 08 Jul 2019, 11:11.
Last edited by Vigasimrair on 08 Jul 2019, 13:55, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 168
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:27
Option D

Example : NYC vs New Mexico City

If a state does not need people to parallel park, i.e. the state has ample parking lots, then the required test would seem futile.
Director
Joined: 22 Nov 2018
Posts: 562
Location: India
GMAT 1: 640 Q45 V35
GMAT 2: 660 Q48 V33
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:28
2
Summary - In states where PP is part of licensing exams accidents resulting from improper PP is nearly 7%, whereas other states have a negligible number of PP incidents. Is PP in exams counter productive?

Prethinking - First is PP Required in other states, If not required due to better parking space then such accidents will not occur itself and will present a wrong picture

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element -
Will not help us determine if PP was counterproductive, information on accidents % during the period when test contained it and % during the period it was removed is required here

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision -
No information to help decide if PP was counterproductive as even poor lighting is not an excuse

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park-
No information to help decide if PP was counterproductive as we are talking about the number of accidents and not who's fault.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking - Correct, in line with Prethinking. If no PP is required in other states then comparison is wrong.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
If PP accidents are not reported then what % and in which states (where PP is part of test or Not) is required do make sense.
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2019, 11:28

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4    Next  [ 79 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# City official: In states where parallel parking is

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

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