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

It is currently 22 Nov 2019, 15:33

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

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

Find Similar Topics 
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2431
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:00
3
5
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  65% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:53) correct 45% (01:52) wrong based on 384 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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

 

This question was provided by Veritas Prep
for the Game of Timers Competition

 


_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
Most Helpful Community Reply
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
V
Status: Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Posts: 2431
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
Schools: Kelley '20, ISB '19
GPA: 3.2
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jul 2019, 08:52
Official Explanation:

With this question, we're given a potential data flaw and being tasked to address it using one of the answer choices. If, structurally, the argument is as follows:

Premise: In states with parallel parking assessments, there is a significant portion of accidents caused by parallel parking
Premise: In states without the assessment, the number of these incidents is negligible
Conclusion: The assessment element is counterproductive and should be eliminated

The "gap" in logic consists of the assumption that we're looking at otherwise similar "data," and that the element plays a negative role in the anticipated number/percent of related accidents. However, whether or not this is valid hinges directly on how comparable the data is. What if there is not parallel parking element in states where an insignificant portion of the parking consisted of parallel parking, while in states with the element, parallel parking was abundant! If this is the case, the assessment could very well be necessary, and the data could be a result of the fact that a substantial portion of parking is done "parallel," - opening drivers to more of a risk of parallel parking related incidents. Whereas, if states without this portion of the exam also had a significant amount of parallel parking - they just might be on to something here! If the situations are parallel, and both express states with a notable level of parallel parking, but those with the exam element experience a more notable number of accidents resulting from this activity, perhaps we ought to remove this element after all! Answer choice (D) addresses this line of reasoning, as - if answered one way, the argument is likely flawed for the reasons expressed above, if answered the other way, it is very likely valid. None of the other answer choices pose a gap in thinking, or a potentially flawed assumption upon which the validity of the argument directly hinges.

 

This question was provided by Veritas Prep
for the Game of Timers Competition

 


_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long
General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 29 Nov 2018
Posts: 149
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, General Management
GPA: 3.99
WE: Engineering (Computer Hardware)
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Jul 2019, 04:40
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?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - Incorrec irrelevant to the argument

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision -Incorrect if poor lighting was the reason, it would have impacted driver of both the states equally.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - Incorrect. the difference between the two states is requirement of additional clause in examination. So in both states accident can occur during parallel parking.

(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 there is no parallel parking requirement it might lead to less accidents.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Incorrect We don't know the relative difference in parking accident reporting between two states.

Originally posted by ruchik on 08 Jul 2019, 08:23.
Last edited by ruchik on 09 Jul 2019, 04:40, edited 4 times in total.
Director
Director
User avatar
V
Joined: 28 Jul 2016
Posts: 654
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Human Resources
GPA: 3.97
WE: Project Management (Investment Banking)
Reviews Badge
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:26
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.

For a given statement we have to find the critical difference as to why adding a parallel parking test is even increasing cases of accidents.
Either parking test do not resemble such scenarios or the states that do not have parallel parking test do not need because they do not have such use case.
Let us explore the options.

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 No impact on current trend
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's visionOut of scope and do not account for genral cases
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park It does not matter because the test should have taught agianst such scenarios
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parkingThis si what clearly similar to our expecattion since if there are no parallel parkings , such cases will not occur, however in case there are many, the current state imposing parallel car park should re-think
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authoritiesDo not matter

D is the answer
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 30 May 2018
Posts: 157
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V36
GPA: 3.8
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:27
D.

A, B and C are clearly irrelevant.

E I think is insufficient as knowing whether all incidents are reported will not be enough, we will need to know exact amount of reporting in both cases to come to a conclusion.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Aug 2018
Posts: 339
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Operations (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:28
C is the answer because if its not the driver then the argument will collapse.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
On the way to get into the B-school and I will not leave it until I win. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

" I CAN AND I WILL"

GMAT:[640 Q44, V34, IR4, AWA5]
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 15 Jun 2019
Posts: 32
Location: Kazakhstan
Schools: Carey '21
GPA: 3.93
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:30
(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - Incorrect, maybe even before, when those states had parking element of the exam, they had a negligible amount of accidents
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - Incorrect. In the line, there is nothing about lighting
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - Incorrect. Nothing about individual attempts
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking - Incorrect. Not a strong argument, we don't have a comparison between states with and without a parallel parking element of the exam in terms of portion in all accidents
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Correct. If all accidents are reported there could be made good decisions
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 199
CAT Tests
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Jul 2019, 02:06
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.

Conclusion: 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

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Not quite relevant

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
It does not matter if the individual is different from the driver as long as the accidents are related to parallel parking.

(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 parallel parking is only negligible in states without the requirement, the accidents will also be lower. And this would weaken the argument. However, if parallel parking is a significant portion of parking in those states, then the argument is strengthened.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This statement is not specific to states with or without the parallel parking requirement. So, even in states where parallel parking is required for licensing exams, this statement would imply that the % is more than 7%. So not needed to evaluate the argument.

Answer should be D.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Please give Kudos if you like the post

Originally posted by prashanths on 08 Jul 2019, 08:35.
Last edited by prashanths on 09 Jul 2019, 02:06, edited 2 times in total.
Director
Director
User avatar
D
Status: Learning stage
Joined: 01 Oct 2017
Posts: 995
WE: Supply Chain Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:35
1
Given scenario:-
1) Parallel parking test system- Yes, % of accident due to improper parallel parking- less but 7%
2) No parallel parking test system:- Negligible no of accidents

Conclusion of the author:- Remove the testing system as it's zero-productive.

Hence, we have to evaluate that, there mayn't be a test so called "parallel parking" at those states where negligible accidents occur due to parking but parallel parking system is followed at a large portion of the states.

Ans. (D)
_________________
Regards,

PKN

Rise above the storm, you will find the sunshine
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
V
Joined: 18 Aug 2017
Posts: 5325
Location: India
Concentration: Sustainability, Marketing
GPA: 4
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:37
A tough one ; giving a try
Conclusion of argument ; Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.
need to find option which both strengthens and breaks the conclusion IMO B; stands out of given option as it both strengthens and weakens the conclusion
Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision

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
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Jan 2019
Posts: 502
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
WE: Sales (Other)
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:38
1
The comparison drawn is

% of accidents during parallel parking in states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, (say A) vs % of accidents during parallel parking in states where parallel parking is not a required element of driver licensing exams, (say B)

[PP accidents]A/[Total number of PP]A vs [PP accidents]B/[Total number of PP]B

The city official says [PP accidents]B < [PP accidents]A if [Total number of PP]A = [Total number of PP]B

Therefore to verify the 'if' part, we need to verify [Total number of PP]A = [Total number of PP]B

IMO, this is presented in (D)
Director
Director
User avatar
P
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 662
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:39
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
whether states had previously used the parallel parking element is not relevant because the statistics is for the state that do and the states that dont, also even if we see the states that have we may not get usable information at all, only if we check the correctness/validation of the statistics we can come to a conclusion.
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
The argument does not address the light during the accident and also no need to analyse the lighting because accident not related to the lighting will also increase during such period
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
all the drivers have to either give the parallel parking test in one state or no driver has to give the test in another state, so in one state all the drivers will have the same level of expertise of the parallel parking skill, so for this reason this choice in 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
The reason why the states face high number of accidents related to parallel parking is not addressed with this question and for this reason this option is out.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
Correct answer because if the parallel parking related accidents were not properly reported then we cannot come to the conclusion that the statistics in question is correct,Also in states that impose parallel parking in test the drivers have more tendency to report the accident related to it than the drivers who dont have to give paralell parking test.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
P
Joined: 10 Jan 2017
Posts: 330
Location: India
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:43
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 - This is out of scope answer as previously if there was PP an element in exam and then removed is no where related to the scope of that PP in exam should be removed because it is counterproductive
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - Now this one i felt tempted at, cause with extreme analysis if we can make a YES & NO judgement of this statement, than if YES, the PP in exam is not the single cause to blame for the accidents & if NO - then PP can be blamed, but there can be some other reasons as well, so i discarded it.
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - Driver at fault is 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 - I opted for this one, by Variance check, if it is YES, then where PP is not a part of exam, but majority of Parking space is Parallel, drives while parking are causing less accidents then no need to have PP in exam; & if we say it as NO, then the conclusion shatters as if there are no parallel parking in states where PP is not mandatory, then we can judge that drivers in those states are in similarity with those drivers of states where there are parallel parking.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Out of scope
_________________
Good, better, best. Never let it rest. 'Till your good is better and your better is best.
Please hit +1 Kudos if you like my Post.
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 30 Nov 2017
Posts: 193
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Premium Member
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:46
In this question, city official claim that there is high cases of accident resulting from parallel parking despite it is a requirement to obtain driving licence when compared to states that have no such laws with negligible record of parallel parking accidents. Therefore, in other to evaluate the argument, it will be important to know whether all parallel parking related accidents are reported. Answer choice E

Posted from my mobile device
_________________
Be Braver, you cannot cross a chasm in two small jumps...
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 18 Sep 2018
Posts: 100
CAT Tests
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:46
1
IMO D

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element - Irrelevant, as we only care about the present situation
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - The Question stem clearly states "the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking", so accidents due to different reasons are out of scope
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park - Clearly does not help to evaluate the reasoning, does not matter if it was one sided fault 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 - Correct, If significant portion of the parking in those states are parallel parking, then they need not include it as a required element, as it is already present as a factor by default. So comparing to those states might not be a good decision
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities - Out of scope, as clearly does not help to evaluate the reasoning
Manager
Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 12 Apr 2017
Posts: 142
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Operations
GPA: 3.1
CAT Tests
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:47
A - Would help access if the numbers changed prior to the removal of the parallel parking on the exam and after
B - Out of Focus
C - Was not to sure about this one
D- Out of Focus
E - Out of Focus
Director
Director
avatar
P
Joined: 24 Nov 2016
Posts: 837
Location: United States
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:49
1
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


[evaluate arg]
[prem] where || pk is req exams, accidents from bad || pk is greater than where || pk not req;
[con] thus, we must remove req exams bc counterproductive to driver safety.
[reason] y is it counter? bc there are more || prk accds where its req vs not req; wat if the num of drivers in states not req park much less than those that req? or even dont || park at all!

(A) how would this help evaluate the claim above? out;
(B) but poor lighting could also occur in all other states, out;
(C) if driver parking caused the accident, maybe it was bc of the req, but it couldve been because of some other reason, thus not really helping evaluate;
(E) this could be the case in any state, out;

Answer (D): if there isn't || pk in states that don't req, then this attacks the premise–the num of incidents were insignificant bc there werent any that could be caused!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 06 Jun 2019
Posts: 135
City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 09 Jul 2019, 03:44
2
1
Note 1: Evaluate the Argument questions ask us to select the question that best help determine the logical validity of the argument presented in the stimulus. Question stem examples: evaluate the argument / evaluate the line of reasoning / assess the hypothesis in the passage / judge the conclusion of the argument.

Note 2: In this type questions the information in the stimulus is suspect, so we should search for the reasoning error present. Please note that we are not being asked to prove with finality whether the argument is good or bad – rather, we must simply ask the question that will best help analyze the argument’s validity.

Note 3: The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include “new” information.

Note 4: We need to apply the Variance Test by supplying polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and then analyzing how the subsequent results affect the conclusion in the stimulus. If different responses produce different effects on the conclusion, then the answer choice is correct. If different responses do not produce different effects, then the answer choice is incorrect.

The above notes are from PowerScore CR Bible. Keeping them in mind, let’s analyze our question.

City official’s conclusion: Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking (PP) element of the test.

City official’s line of reasoning: ...because PP is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Evidence: States without PP have fewer PP related incidents than states with PP have.

As Note 2 says, we need to be suspicious of the stimulus and question it – Is it good or bad if we remove PP testing just because the official claims that it is counterproductive? Did he correctly draw his conclusion from the above evidence? What if he overlooked some nuances? As Note 1 says, the question in the correct answer choice will be similar to these ones. Let’s use the Variance Test to analyze official’s conclusion in the light of answer choices, as Note 4 says:

A. Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

This answer choice asks whether states without PP testing had such testing before. To apply the Variance Test, we should supply opposing answers to the question in A and see whether the conclusion is weakened or strengthened. First we say YES, these states before had such testing. Does this information strengthen or weaken the line of reasoning (PP is clearly counterproductive)? I think, No. Now let’s answer NO, these states didn’t have such testing. Once again, we cannot find out whether PP testing indeed counterproductive in line of this info. Hence, A should be incorrect. The application of the Variance Test to B, C, and E will also give similar results.

D. Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

Let’s first say YES and then NO to C and see whether official’s line of reasoning or conclusion is strengthened or weakened.
Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? YES. If indeed many people use PP and still PP accidents are less common, then states without PP testing did a good job by removing such testing. Correspondingly, states with PP testing should get rid of such testing because it doesn’t prove to be productive. As we see, the conclusion is strengthened because official’s line of reasoning becomes valid.

Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? NO. Instead of PP many people use other type of parking. Now everything changes. If indeed few people use PP in states without PP testing, then accidents due to PP must be less common not because PP is counterproductive, but because only few people use PP. Thus official’s conclusion is weakened because his line of reasoning becomes invalid. Clearly, D help us evaluate official’s line of reasoning.

Hence D
_________________
Bruce Lee: “I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.”
GMAC: “I fear not the aspirant who has practiced 10,000 questions, but I fear the aspirant who has learnt the most out of every single question.” :lol:

Originally posted by JonShukhrat on 08 Jul 2019, 08:51.
Last edited by JonShukhrat on 09 Jul 2019, 03:44, edited 2 times in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 10 Mar 2019
Posts: 75
Location: Russian Federation
Schools: Booth '22, Haas '22
GMAT 1: 730 Q50 V39
GPA: 3.95
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:56
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. Irrelevant
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision. Absolutely irrelevant
(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. Yes! That's what we are looking for. If the states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam people do not park parallel then this is the real reason behind negligible number of parallel parking related incidents, not the part of the exam.
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities. Out of scope
Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Jul 2018
Posts: 8
GMAT 1: 630 Q50 V25
GMAT 2: 660 Q49 V31
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Jul 2019, 08:58
IMO E

We need to confirm that there are no accidents missed out in the state that has negligible number of parallel parking related accidents. Option E discusses the same point.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: City official: In states where parallel parking is   [#permalink] 08 Jul 2019, 08:58

Go to page    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