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

 It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 22:51

### 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

Manager
Joined: 08 Jan 2018
Posts: 98
Location: India
GPA: 4
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 23:29
The author gives a fact that is, the states which do not has the parallel parking element exam, they tend to have fewer accidents.
We need to check which statement gives the idea, so that city official can say anything about accidents and safety:
1. It does not give any evidence about the states which had the exam but later removed it, so the accidents got fewer.
2. Irrelevant for the passage. Author concerns about the safety of the driver whenever, he is parking.
3. This looks the statement that supports the author`s view. This has that safety concern for the individuals. This gives a piece of evidence to the city official to cite that argument.
4. Looks like messy structure and does not provide any clear information.
5. This looks like the answer, but city official can cite a fact only if the accidents are reported to the authority, then only he can make a conclusion.

Please hit kudos if you like the solution.
Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2018
Posts: 117
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 23:30
Conclusion: 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 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
If the ans is yes, this might cast a doubt that probably the states found this element counter productive and hence removed. Though it would be bit too much of assumption from our part.
If ans is NO, it doesn't weaken the conclusion. Incorrect

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Irrelevant. This doesn't explain why other states have lower rates of accidents. Incorrect.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
If ans is yes, this means having that element has caused the accident. Strengthens conclusion.
If ans is No, this means its not the element, but the non-adherence to rules that has caused the increase in accidents. Weakens conclusion.
Correct

(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 ans is No, then this weakens the argument. Since, the lower rate is because there are few parallel parking places
If ans is yes, it means even after having significant portions of parking as parallel parking, there are lower rates of accidents. That is, not having those elements has not contributed to the increased accidents.
But how can that explain, it is counter productive to have those elements. Incorrect

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Trap. This would have been a right choice provided it said -"Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities in states where parallel parking is not a required element of driver licensing exams". Right now, this applies to both states, this doesnt explain why states with the parallel parking element have higher accident rates.Incorrect

It was hard to figure out between C and D.

And is C, IMO
_________________
"Remember that guy that gave up?
Neither does anybody else"
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2019
Posts: 107
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Finance
GMAT 1: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2019, 23:36
(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

whether it was removed later in some states doesn't give much information to evaluate the situation. 'A' can be eliminated.

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

Not related to the given situation in the question. 'B' can be eliminated.

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

Every driver in the state will under go the parallel parking test, which makes this question redundant. 'C' can be eliminated.

(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 will clear only the side of "States with no parallel parking element in exam". But other side will still remain unknown. 'D' can be eliminated.

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

This question can make situation more clear about both sides. Whether incidents were reported in one type of states but not in the other type of states.

Intern
Joined: 09 May 2019
Posts: 23
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 00:20
1
The line of reasoning being used by the city official is that the states which do no have parallel parking as a required element for the exam the numbe of parking related incidents are less. In order to further evaluate the line of resoningbeing used by city officials it should be checked whether those staes where parallel parking is not required part of driving exam whether a significant portion of the parking in these states is parallel parking.Hence option D is the right answer
Manager
Joined: 08 Apr 2019
Posts: 157
Location: India
GPA: 4
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 00:22
2
It is (D), IMO

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - doesn't help explain the reason why it was removed in those states. If yes, they had it previously, or if no, they didn't have it - what effect does any of these have on our conclusion? Hence, OUT.

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - Completely out-of-scope.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - SO WHAT? Doesn't help. OUT.

(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 exactly what we've been looking for. Aptly explains, if in case parallel parking is a less / very less portion of the parking. And applying the VARIANCE ANALYSIS on this answer choice confirms this as the correct answer choice.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Good one, close, but "all" rules this one out. What if most where still being reported? Since we really can't say "how many", this one really doesn't help.

Hence, (D) is the correct answer choice
Manager
Joined: 23 Oct 2018
Posts: 50
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 01:02
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.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
To evaluate whether parallel parking leads to a 7% accident rate and removing it can impact the rate, we need a statement which can help us establish a relation between both. Option C states the same. If yes, then the rate will definitely be impacted and in case of NO, it will have no impact.
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Sep 2017
Posts: 468
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 01:27
2
Conclusion: we should remove the parallel parking element requirement of the test, because the 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
Even if this is true, we are still not sure whether removing the parallel parking element of the test will also lower the number of parallel-parking related incidents in the states with existing parallel parking element of the exam

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
This is out of scope. Evaluating street lighting condition is useless for evaluating the conclusion made by the city official and its line of reasoning

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
This is out of scope. Evaluating who is at fault in parallel parking-related accidents is useless for evaluating the conclusion made by the city official and its line of 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 ANSWER. If this is false, then there is NO need of parallel parking element of the test for those aforementioned states. As a result, the conclusion made by the city official will definitely fall apart. However, if this is true, then the city official's conclusion and reasoning will hold true.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This is out of scope. Evaluating whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities or not is useless for evaluating the conclusion made by the city official and its line of reasoning
Director
Joined: 18 May 2019
Posts: 554
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 01:46
1
This is an evaluate assumption question. From the answer choices, the best answer choice which evaluates the assumption of the city official is option D. When the parking in states that do not require parallel parking as part of their exams does not have parallel parking as part of their parking, then this calls into question rationale for questioning the usefulness of parallel parking as part of exam requirements. However, if those states who do not require parallel parking as part of their exams also have significant portion of their parking as parallel parking, then it strengthens the rationale of the city official. Hence the answer is D.

Posted from my mobile device
Senior Manager
Joined: 31 May 2018
Posts: 461
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 02:48
2
states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%.
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 of the argument)

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element or not doesn't help find
whether parallel parking element is counterproductive and we can't say we should remove such elements or not

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
whether accidents occur during morning or evening doesn't help evaluate the conclusion that we should remove the parallel parking element or not irrelevant

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
by knowing individual attempting to park is at fault or not doesn't help evaluate the conclusion that we should remove such elements or not
so OUT

(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)
yes this answer choice is what we are looking for let's apply the variance test on this answer choice if yes--strengthen the conclusion.....if no--weaken the conclusion
--yes--a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
this says the significant portion is parallel parking also there is no parallel parking element in spite of this there are negligible accidents
but states where there are parallel parking elements 7% accidents occurs this may be because of these elements so these elements are counterproductive
to public health so we should definitely remove parallel parking elements (this strengthen the conclusion)

--no--a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is not parallel parking
if significant portions are not parallel parking then.... negligible accidents are because of less need to park parallel..this doesn't prove that these elements are detrimental
so we cant remove parallel parking elements (this weakens the conclusion)

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
here we are concerned about whether parallel parking element is required.
and answer to this choice-- all parking accidents are reported or not? doesn't help evaluate whether the parallel parking element is required
so OUT
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2019
Posts: 216
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 03:11
1
conclusion is : we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element ( negligible number of accidents that state cannot be accounted by this statement)
(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 ( 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 - bingo
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities ( if the other state reported are given then it wud have been close, for this state already it is 7%, so wont give much effect)

so ans is D
Manager
Joined: 30 Nov 2016
Posts: 102
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 03:55
1
IMO the answer should be D
If a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is not parallel parking then we cannot determine whether the absence of the element in test has any effect.

However if the potion of parallel parking is significant and still the number is less then then conclusion drawn is justified
Manager
Joined: 01 Oct 2018
Posts: 112
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 04:08
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?

Let's precise the passage:
1 state --- need a license ---- 7% accidents
2 state --- no need in a license ---- no accidents
Conclusion of the author: License causes accidents

The first thoughts that come to me are 1. Does this data reliable? 2. What situations do exists in other states with similar conditions of parking as in state 1?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element
Even if such an element existed, this doesn't explain their too low level of accidents or high level of accidents in state 1. % of accidents must be on the same level.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Not relevant, this doesn't explain the too low level of accidents in state 2 or high level of accidents in state 1, because evenings exist everywhere.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
Not relevant at all
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Sounds good, it explains why state 2 has such low % level. BUT this doesn't help us understand is parking exam helpful or not.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities.
RIGHT. If this variant exists, we can't rely on this data and cancel parallel parking exam, if not - we can assess other factors or cancel the exam.
Answ E
Intern
Joined: 29 May 2019
Posts: 32
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 05:00
Option E can make or break a conclusion for wether parallel parking to be a part for driving license.
A,B and C are irrelevant and no effect to the conclusion
D is a close one but doesnt confirm wether the places having most portion for parallel parking are the ones where it's not a part of driving licence

Posted from my mobile device
Manager
Joined: 17 Apr 2018
Posts: 107
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 06:12
1
pre thinking

>>the data shows 7% and then talk about the numbers of the accident.
The correct choice can be one that discusses the subtlety between the number and the percent.

B - out of scope scenario, does not relate the parallel parking in any way.
A - does not link up how removing it afterwards has any impact.

D - is on the same line of our pre thinking

c,e - are not as good as d.
Manager
Status: Victory is never a one time thing.
Joined: 14 Jan 2018
Posts: 57
Location: Oman
Concentration: Marketing, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 590 Q49 V21
GMAT 2: 650 Q47 V33
GPA: 3.8
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 07:13
This is basically a paradox because despite parallel parking skill being a pre-requisite to get the license, there are more accidents related to the same.
The argument then makes an illogical conclusion that removing this pre-requisite will solve the issue.
The assumption here is that the driver with this skill is actually the one responsible for the accident or else this conclusion cannot be arrived.
Option C is the only option which addresses this point and hence is the correct answer.
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Sep 2018
Posts: 471
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V30
GPA: 3.97
WE: Investment Banking (Investment Banking)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 07:40
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- Even if they did, it does not matter and doesn't give us the line of reasoning
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision-This is out of scope. the lighting problem may appear in both the states if so. this is irrelevant
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park-This argument talks about individuals who had the element of parallel parking during their licensing exams so this is implied. not needed for evaluation
(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-It can be ascertained that something else must have caused this problem. what if there have been accidents which have not been reported to the authority? The facts will change.
Hence E is the correct answer.
_________________
Why do we fall?...So we can learn to pick ourselves up again
Intern
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 20
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 07:44
The correct answer choice is D - the city official must be assuming that people do parallel parking in the states without the parallel parking requirement of the exam.

If a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking, then it strengthens the argument. Whereas if a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is NOT parallel parking, then it weakens the argument.
Manager
Joined: 03 Oct 2012
Posts: 159
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
WE: Brand Management (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2019, 07:49
Conclusion: Remove the parallel parking element of the test.
Why?: Counterproductive to driver safety
Again why?: States where this element is part of the exam have higher accidents related to parallel parking compared to states who do not have this element as a part of the exam.

We are asked to evaluate the argument. IMO we have to examine why what is happening is happening . POE according to me:

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element (How does this impact the argument? Eliminate)
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision (Bottom line is accidents are more in states which test the parking method than in those states which don't. Doesn't help. Eliminate.)
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park (Well even if it wasn't, why would an accident happen? Not really helpful. Eliminate)
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking (Well if we get to know that in states which don't have this element in test don't have parallel parking at all or for that matter very less, it does explain why those states have less accidents related to parallel parking. Best choice)
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities (Well if all are not reported and there is a higher %age in one state compared to the other, the situation would get worse if all get reported. Eliminate)
Intern
Joined: 31 Jul 2017
Posts: 47
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Jul 2019, 10:49
Option D is drafted wrong, pls confirm if agree.
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is   [#permalink] 11 Jul 2019, 10:49

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by