It is logical to conclude that it is more dangerous

one person in 19000 will die each year as a passenger in an automobile

This means that if the population of a country is 190,000,
10 people will die each year as a passenger in an automobile, (1 in 19000)
but only 2.5 people will die each year as a motorcyclist. (1 in 73000)
This is what the premises tell us.

(B) Expressing the difference between the probability of death among automobile passengers and that of motorcyclists as a percentage of the total number of deaths

Again, say population of a country is 190,000.
Say total number of deaths last year were 100.
(Death in an automobile/Total number of deaths)*100 = (10/100)*100 = 10%
(Death on a motorcycle/Total number of deaths)*100 = (2.5/100)*100 = 2.5%

This doesn't help us in any way because the total in both the cases is the same again. The point is that the given figures will give very different pictures when the totals are relevant numbers (number of people who drive automobiles vs number of people who ride motorcycles)

You were likely able to expose the flaw in the question above: Not nearly as many people ride motorcycles as drive cars, so of course more people are killed in cars than on motorcycles. The sample sizes for each group are wildly incongruent; the argument is like saying that you are more likely to be injured while walking than while taming a lion. True—but walking is still safer. We just do that so much more than we tame lions that the absolute numbers won’t be representative of the risk.

When sample sizes are incongruent, a better comparison comes from taking the per-capita rate (how many from each group) than taking the absolute numbers. And that is what answer choice D correctly does: It standardizes the comparison by expressing the probability on the basis of 1,000 members of each group, and not as a probability of the population (which likely includes billions who do not ride motorcycles) as a whole. Beware of answer choice B. If you read it quickly, you might think it would give the necessary information to properly assess the argument, but it still is not breaking apart the groups and giving the necessary per capita information for each group separately. It is yet another example of a cleverly repackaged premise; the study would not give you any new information.

That’s where the passage gets tricky and you have to read closely.

The passage is just comparing 1 out of people OVERALL. We are not getting statistics based on how many ppl drive cars vs. how many ppl drive motorcycles.

“1 out of 19,000 will die each year in an automobile”.

This does NOT say that 1 out of every 19,000 automobile DRIVERS will die. It just says that 1 out of 19,000 PASSENGERS will die.

I believe they went out of their way to lead us away from that fact.....good, hard question.



Posted from my mobile device

Hi chetan2u,

Can you please tell with an example how is D correct. According to me it a correct reasoning behind making a conclusion. I know I am missing something.

If I go to purchase a vehicle and someone says according to survey -
1) 1 out of every 19000 is dead in car accident
2) 1 out of every 73000 is dead in motorcycle accident.
Conclusion- So, I should purchase car as I will be more safe.

Where is my reasoning wrong.
Please help.

Hi chetan2u,

Is n't one in 19000 and one in every 73000 already giving an ratio?

Please help

thanks

Hello,

I still have doubt with above explanation.

In question itself it is mentioned 1 in 19000 deaths for car traveler and 1 in 78000 deaths in biker, hence either way we can calculate death rate per thousand from above data.

i.e. For car=1/19 death per thousand while for bike= 1/78 per thousand riders, hence we can say that bike is safe.

Why we would be needing separate per thousand deaths?

Dear VeritasKarishma DmitryFarber IanStewart VeritasPrepBrian,

Q1. I do not know what the 2 ratios given in the passage mean. For example, does one person in 19,000 mean one death out of 19,000 deaths from ALL category combined in the country?

Q2. I do not know what choice B. means (the original choice B. in the post is inaccurate).

(B) Expressing the difference between the probability of death among automobile passengers and that of motorcyclists as a percentage of the total number of deaths

Does choice B. mean merely subtracting 1/73,000 from 1/19,000 given in the passage?

Otherwise, how can we calculate the probability of death among automobile passengers as a percentage of the total number of deaths? Similarly, how can we calculate the probability of motorcyclists as a percentage of the total number of deaths?

The wording is so ambiguous here.

Thank you in advance!

Hi carcass / aditya8062 / mikemcgarry / daagh /VeritasPrepKarishma,

Could you please share your reasoning behind this CR
How could the ans be D.

Will we waiting for your assistance

Ammmm........

Now I got the reasoning behind it.. Thank you for explanation chetan2u.
This question really sucked me.....
Thanks again :D

chetan2u

Can you please reply for PM as well that I sent you..

D is my answer.

Followed the elimination technique. It is easier to eliminate A,B,C and E rather than selecting D.

The answer choices are paraphrased here from those original. The answer choices mentioned in the original question featured in the Veritas CR Book are not those mentioned here. I am copying the original question here for all to conveniently refer to it.

The variance test works for both C & D. What makes C more wrong?

I don't know how to defend the answer choice D :

D) Comparing death rates per thousand members of each group rather than comparing total number of deaths

Even the death numbers mentioned in the stem is not a Total Number, as option D mentions, but ratios of deaths in different circumstances.

1/19000
and
1/73000

are the denominators = travelers ?
what inference can I draw from premise and how D] is different

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.