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

 It is currently 05 Dec 2019, 15:03

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Joined: 27 Aug 2014
Posts: 368
Location: Netherlands
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Schools: LBS '22, ISB '21
GPA: 3.9
WE: Analyst (Energy and Utilities)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:29
2

In order to evaluate the argument we need to know why the states which do not have parallel parking element in exams have no/negligible accidents. To answer this question, we need to know if those drivers are parallel parking or not. D actually tells this part. Rest of the answers are wrong due to the reason indicated.

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 Out of scope
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision talks about how accidents occur, not relevant
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park --> cannot evaluate the statement using this alone
(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 This talks about number, which is out of scope
Manager
Joined: 19 Apr 2017
Posts: 168
Concentration: General Management, Sustainability
Schools: ESSEC '22
GPA: 3.9
WE: Operations (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 11:31
Conclusion: 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
Does not help the conclusion
B Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
say it did occur only in the evening, if it shows a drop in the day, it is still would not contribute to the number of accidents.

C Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This does not show if its counter productive or not
D Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
significant portion of the exam is parallel parking or not would not be sufficient to evaluate if its counter productive to the drivers safety or not

E Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
If the base for the argument is to remove the parallel element from the exam this would be necessary to evaluate whether parking element in the exam is important or not
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 140
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V35
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 12:10
2
Reasoning: to evaluate the line of reasoning of the argument, we need to get a feature of the argument which relates directly to the number of accidents and follows the variance test.

What is variance test? --> Taking the option to either extremes (+ve or -ve), validates or invalidates the arugment at the extremes.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element --> Out of scope. It does not matter if the parallel parking element of the exam was previously present in the test or not. What matters is how the presence or absence of this element in the test influences the number of accidents related to parallel parking.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision. --> Out of scope. It does not matter if poor lighting lead to accidents. What matters is the accidents occured or not.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park. --> Might be true. But this does not influence the reasoning at all. It does not matter who it was. What matters is how the element of the test influenced the number of accidents.
(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. This is spot on. If there are no or minimal parallel parking spots in a state, then it does not make sense to test that skill and hence also the number of accidents will be minimal for that reason. On the contrary states with many parallel parking spots should test this skill and also there is a chance of accidents for this reason. The variance test holds true with this option at both extremes.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities. --> Out of scope. Does not matter. Whether all incidents are reported or not, whatever is reported gives us the numbers as stated in the paragraph.
Manager
Joined: 31 Dec 2017
Posts: 88
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 12:41
The argument is easy to comprehend; and the word "negligible" plays an important role to drive my decision.
A.Out of scope, no info mentioned about how a parallel parking element of the exam is included or not in the past.
B.Out of scope, no info about the time of the accident.
C.Out of scope, it's irrelevant to refer back to the argument about how the drivers attempt to parallel park associated with accidents.
D. Out of scope, no info about the portion of parking lot in the states is a parallel parking or not.
E. This is what we have left after applying POE.
Director
Status: Manager
Joined: 27 Oct 2018
Posts: 743
Location: Egypt
GPA: 3.67
WE: Pharmaceuticals (Health Care)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 12:46
2
[u]premise: parallel parking test cities --> more parallel parking accidents
conclusion :[/u] no parallel parking test cities --> less parallel parking accidents

To evaluate the reasoning behind this comparison, we should be searching for information confirming the Analogy between the two cases/cities.

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.
so what? This information is useless by itself because the reason for these cities to remove the parallel parking element will be still unknown.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision.
irrelevant!! the same evening comes to the two cities, so what is the difference?? we can't assume that the lights in one city is poor compared with that of the other city unless explicitly mentioned.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park.
This complicates the reasoning!!: how trained/tested drivers are making more mistakes than untrained/untested counterparts??

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
This destroys the analogy : because comparing the first city with another that rarely has parallel parking is a misleading comparison, and explains that there is few parallel parking accidents because there is few parallel parking from the start.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Tempting, but out of scope: the author was not comparing the reported accidents in the two cities, but facts that we must accept as true. Plus, we can't assume that accidents are appropriately reported in one city more than the other.

D
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2018
Posts: 480
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 13:04
2
In such cases, when we are asked to evaluate, we have to think about assumptions, ways to weaken or strengthen the argument

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
Irrelevant information, it's not important what those states did in the past, we want to evaluate and discuss the current situation in which states with and without parallel parking element of the exam plays a role in parking accidents

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Again irrelevant, poor lightning might also obstruct the driver's vision in states without parking element.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This is for both cases. We can neither strengthen nor weaken the argument

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Yep. This is an assumption, if we want to compare states by accident rates, we have to assume that a significant portion of parking is parallel parking

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
"Yes" to this question does not change anything, as well as "NO". Based on this information it's hard to say anything about the argument

IMO
Ans: D
VP
Joined: 19 Oct 2018
Posts: 1151
Location: India
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 14:27
1
A. Even if a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element, but we have no data regarding the number of parallel parking accidents before parallel parking element was removed. (Incorrect)

B. Poor lighting can't explain the difference in the number of accidents in states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, and in states without this requirement

C. Irrelevant

D. If true- Strengthening the conclusion.
If false- Weakening the conclusion
Correct

E. If true- strengthening the conclusion
If false- It can strengthening or weakening the conclusion, as we don't have sufficient data about the number of cases that are not reported in both cities.

IMO D
Manager
Joined: 29 May 2019
Posts: 122
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 15:37
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?
Type: Evaluate
So we have to find a question which when we answer yes or no should affect the conclusion.
Conclusion: Bold sentence above.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
This does not affect conclusion in any way. Eliminate.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
We are looking for something which will talk about parallel parking. Irrelevant.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This can be the answer as it talks about parallel parking. If the answer is yes then it is affecting the conclusion but if the answer is no then it does not have any effect. Incorrect.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Perfectly makes sense. If there is and exam in the countries where the accidents happen not because of parallel parking. Yes and No both affect the conclusion.
Correct.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Doesnt make sense.
_________________
Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start again.

Success is the sum of all small efforts.

MAKE IT HAPPEN
Manager
Joined: 12 Mar 2018
Posts: 83
Location: United States
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 16:24
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.

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

The city official is relating the parallel parking being a part of the driving test to driver safety. The reasoning he is using is the data about the percent of accidents in states with parallel parking a requirement in the driving tests vs. the states without the requirement.

Pre-thinking: The city official must consider whether the states without the requirement does indeed for a driver have the need to know how to parallel park safely without causing any accidents.

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. Even if this was true, doesn't help to come up with the official's conclusion.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision. Incorrect. Which time of the day accidents happen is irrelevant.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park. Incorrect. Irrelevant.
(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 with our pre-thinking.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities. Incorrect. This does not help evaluate the conclusion.
Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2014
Posts: 63
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 17:36
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?

Understanding of Argument
-States where parallel parking is requirement for driver licensing exam has higher percentage of accidents, whereas the states that do not have have parallel parking requirement has negligible accidents.
- Based on it, city officials conclude that parallel parking element should be removed.

Understanding of Question:
-Question ask to evaluate the reasoning (i.e the conclusion )derived by City official.

-For evaluate question we need to identify the information, which made available will help to evaluate the conclusion.That information if made available will either strengthen or weaken the argument that Parallel parking element should be removed from exam or not .

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
-This does not help to evaluate because we are concerned with accidents percentage which is negligible in those state without parallel parking. Hence Eliminate A- This information is not helpful in evaluating.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
-Timing of accidents diverts us to reasons for accidents happening. Our goal is to evaluate the Parallel parking element in the licensing exam and accidents percentage.Not other causes for accidents.-Eliminate B

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
-Again like B , this also gives us makes us think about other reasons for accidents.Irrelevant in evaluating ,Eliminate C

(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- This information can help evaluate the conclusion of city official to remove the parallel parking element from licensing exam.Because IF YES this states which do not have parallel parking element in exam has significant parallel parking -it supports the conclusion .
IF No then it weakens the conclusion. Thus this information regarding the parallel parking helps us evaluate the conclusion.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Irrelevant information. Eliminate E

Dream it ! Achieve It
Intern
Joined: 26 May 2018
Posts: 45
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 17:56

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
because "whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents".
Intern
Joined: 17 Apr 2019
Posts: 17
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 19:25
1
The City official states that because in the states where parallel parking is not required of driver licensing exams has lower percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking, we should remove the parallel parking element of the exam. This assumption is base on both Cities has same road and street. What if in the states without parallel parking don't really have that many parallel parking spot, so they don't require to test the skill for parallel parking. Therefore, (D) is the answer.
Intern
Joined: 08 Jun 2019
Posts: 29
Location: India
GPA: 3.8
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 19:57
3
Here the assumption in deriving the conclusion is that the non- requirement of parallel parking exam is the reason for negligible accidents in states where the exam is not necessary.

Quote:
(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

Even if this were true, at least some drivers would still be required to undergo the test and may result in some percentage of accidents.

Quote:
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision

This is irrelevant. Poor lighting can affect all the states.

Quote:
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park

This is irrelevant as well. Because, at least in some cases, the accident could happen due to improper parking.

Quote:
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

Yes, if the significant portion of the parking in such states is not parallel parking, then the rate accidents would be negligible. Hence this is required to evaluate the reasoning.

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

This is irrelevant as well such cases could happen in both the types of states.
_________________
580 | 560 | Hoping For the best
Manager
Joined: 28 Jan 2019
Posts: 127
Location: Peru
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 20:12
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?

Premises:

Where required - 7%
Where not required - almost 0%

Conclusion:

Since it is counterproductive => We should remove it

So, we need something that evaluates the relevance of this requirement

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - irrelevant
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - out of scope, the passage does not mention this one
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - I like this one, since If yes, it makes +believable the conclusion and if not it makes it - believable, since it tell us whether or not the requirement is being effective
(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 authorities - irrelevant

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 129
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 20:43
2
Few states have parallel parking as a required element of driver licensing exam, while others do not.
In the states where parallel parking is a necessary element in tests, have 7% accidents due to improper parking. Whereas, the numbers are negligible in the other states.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
This does not prove that removing the parallel parking element of the exam decreases the parallel parking-related accidents.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
All states, whether they have a parallel parking element in the test, should suffer from the same fate in that case.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
Does that mean that those who are attempting to parallel park are drivers without driving license of the state? (as state driving license requires parallel park test). Again, all states have an equal chance of being affected.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
This does make sense. If in the states without parallel parking element, a significant number of parking is not parallel parking, then the number of accidents related to it will obviously be less.
Knowing the answer to this will help evaluate the line of reasoning of the city official.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
In which state? If it is in general then all states are equally impacted.

Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Posts: 57
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 21:27
I believe it's C. If the answer to C is yes, then its better to remove parallel parking. If the the answer is no, let the individual make the parking and then see the results
SVP
Joined: 03 Jun 2019
Posts: 1875
Location: India
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 08 Jul 2019, 21:57
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.

Premise: In states where parallel parking is required element of drive licensing exams, the percent of accidents is higher than in states without this requirement.
Conclusion: 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
There is no mention how recent that change was. Answer (Y/N) may provide some hint but is not sufficient. Incorrect
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is clearly out of scope. Incorrect.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This also seems out of scope since it may not be possible that in one state incidents are because of individual's fault and in another state, they are not. Incorrect.
(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 seems correct since parallel parking incidents will require significant portion of parkings to be parallel parkings. If parallel parkings are insignificant, then number of incidents will also reduce. If answer is NO, then clearly number of incidents will not be based on exam but will depend on insignificant number of parallel parkings Correct
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
It seems out of scope since even if all parallel parking-related accidents are not reported to the authorities, it will not distort remaining data to such extent that premise and conclusion are affected. Incorrect.

IMO D

Originally posted by Kinshook on 08 Jul 2019, 21:31.
Last edited by Kinshook on 08 Jul 2019, 21:57, edited 1 time in total.
Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2017
Posts: 261
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GPA: 3.6
WE: Marketing (Hospitality and Tourism)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 21:48
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.

The conclusion of the argument is that Parallel parking element of the test should be removed as it is counterproductive to driver safety. To evaluate the claim we need Either strong reasoning that Yes the parallel parking is unsafe or Strong evidence that the reasoning used for other state is not valid for this state.

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
This statement is trying to disprove the evidence presented by the author, but taken to the extremes it strengthens the argument cause it could mean that yes They removed the parallel parking exam and now the accident rate is negligible. Incorrect.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is incorrect as it could be valid for all the states.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This is incorrect as it could be valid for all the states and drivers of all the states.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Yes, this is the correct choice. It questions the evidence used by the author. Taken to extremes it shall disprove the claim made by the author cause if the state doesn't have parallel parking then obviously they cannot be compared. If the significant portion has parallel parking then the authors reasoning is correct, cause compared states are similar.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This again is incorrect as this could be valid for both the states.

Manager
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 177
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 22:05
2
States having parallel parking requirement in exams -> have higher percent of accidents when from improper parallel parking. states that do not have parallel parking requirement -> have negligible number of parallel parking incidents.
hence remove parallel parking requirement in exams to eliminate the accidents as it is counter productive to drivers.

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
its referring to the states where there are negligible incidents from parallel parking, whether those had a element of parallel parking and then removed. even if they had, how does it impact the conclusion for states with that element..

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
If we take this into consideration for states with PP element, then i have to assume for ALL states. Thats a bit far stretched assumption.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
The answer to this question is given in the argument. yes, percent of accidents resulting from improper PP is ....

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
city official certainly is considering 7% is higher. so unless this unstated assumption is true and if he is not comparing with the equivalent portion with states without PP then his conclusion with fall...keep the answer

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
if we consider this for states with PP elements, it should also be considered for states without PP... so bit far..

D is the closest
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Sep 2013
Posts: 315
Location: India
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 4
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 22:35
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 - Irrelavant.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision : But the same problem can exist in both the states, rendering the argument irrelevant.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park:- Keep
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking:- Keep
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities:- Not required. What if 50% incidents are reported at both the places, the stats will still be comparable.

Between C & D, I'd Choose C as it removes the burden of fault from the driver. Further D, can be eliminated by considering the following.

-Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking:- Yes--But still the same portion can also exist in states will parallel parking element. and vice versa.

C it is.
City official: In states where parallel parking is   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2019, 22:35

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by