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

 It is currently 05 Dec 2019, 15:47

### 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

# Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2016
Posts: 93
Location: China
Concentration: Healthcare, Entrepreneurship
WE: Sales (Health Care)

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2016, 20:50
9
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

40% (01:55) correct 60% (01:59) wrong based on 218 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.

_________________
LSAT CR is driving me mad
Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2016
Posts: 93
Location: China
Concentration: Healthcare, Entrepreneurship
WE: Sales (Health Care)

### Show Tags

22 Dec 2016, 20:51
in other forums the OA is D
_________________
LSAT CR is driving me mad
Director
Joined: 14 Nov 2014
Posts: 592
Location: India
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.76

### Show Tags

23 Dec 2016, 23:08
YangYichen wrote:
Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.

only B and D comes close ...B is not a driving skill..i will also bet on D as well...
Director
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 522
Schools: Cambridge'16

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2016, 01:24
Should differ weakening from not weakening

(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers (problem not in skills- Weakens)
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others (problem not in skills- Weakens)
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers (problem not in skills- Weakens)
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others (can be skill problem - Not weakening)
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver (problem not in skills- Weakens)

D
Director
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 563
Location: India
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 19:01
2
Top Contributor
The OA is D. Let us discuss why -

Premise - teenagers make up 7% of registered drivers BUT are responsible for 14% of fatalities. (clearly the proportion of fatalities is twice that of number of drivers).

Conclusion - Teenagers lack basic driving skills.

Option A - Incorrect.
This provides an alternate explanation for 14% fatalities.
this suggests that the higher fatality rate is due to old and less stable cars, and probably not due to lack of basic driving skills.

Option B - Incorrect.
this option also provides an alternate explanation for the higher fatality rate.
this suggests that the higher fatality rate is due to the fact that they do not wear seat belts, and probably not due to lack of basic driving skills.

Option C - Incorrect.
this option also provides an alternate explanation for the higher fatality rate.
If they drive twice as far, the likelihood that teenagers and their co-passengers will be involved in a fatal accident also increases.

this answer option strengthens the argument that they lack basic driving skills.

Option E - Incorrect.
this option also provides an alternate explanation for the higher fatality rate.
'More passengers' suggests why the fatality rate is higher; If a teenager is involved in a fatal car accident, it is likely that more people would also be involved in that.
_________________
- CrackVerbal Prep Team

Register for the Free GMAT Kickstarter Course : http://bit.ly/2DDHKHq

Register for our Personal Tutoring Course : https://www.crackverbal.com/gmat/personal-tutoring/

Join the free 4 part GMAT video training series : http://bit.ly/2DGm8tR
Intern
Joined: 31 Jan 2015
Posts: 39

### Show Tags

04 Jan 2017, 19:47
OA is D. Can someone change the OA from B to D?
Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 162

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2017, 17:26
"not wearing a seat belt" isn't that a basic driving skill?
Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2017, 22:56
How is the answer here D?

As far as I understand, 4 answer choices "weaken" the idea that teens lack basic driving skills.

The only clear A/C that claims teens lack these basic skills is:
- If teens are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps

How about looking at other A/C
A) If teens drive older and less stable cars, how is this an indicator of their driving skills?
C) If teens drive further than older drivers, again, how does this indicate how good/bad their driving skills are?
E) If teens drive with more passengers, I don't see how this again could impact the driver's skills

The way I'm reading this, I think this is a very poorly worded question
Intern
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Posts: 22
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18, IIMA PGPX"18
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V38

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2017, 02:07

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers. Weakens as fatalities could be due to older car and has nothing to do with driver's skill.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others. Weakens as this is not related to driving skills
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others. Strengthen. As teenage drivers lacks skills, their accidents are more severe in nature. so this is the answer
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills
Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2017, 14:41
deenesh2309 wrote:

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers. Weakens as fatalities could be due to older car and has nothing to do with driver's skill.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others. Weakens as this is not related to driving skills
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others. Strengthen. As teenage drivers lacks skills, their accidents are more severe in nature. so this is the answer
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm reading this question is: "Find 4 A/C that Weaken the argument, and the A/C that does not do this is your answer". Technically, A/Cs that are irrelevant to driving skills (i.e. A, C, E) do not Weaken the idea that teens lack basic driving skills.

To clarify, the Q does not ask: tell me which A/C "Strengthens" the idea that teens lack basic driving skills. The Q asks "tells me which does not weaken". This can be done 2 ways: 1) by "strengthening" ; 2) and by not weakening
Director
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 664
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

18 Jan 2017, 16:56
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
Since this answer choice does not have any relation witht the skills of the teeenager driving the car which was involved in the acccident ,This answer choice is he appropriate answer to the question asked.
Intern
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Posts: 22
Location: India
Schools: ISB '18, IIMA PGPX"18
GMAT 1: 700 Q48 V38

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2017, 00:50
LakerFan24 wrote:
deenesh2309 wrote:

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers. Weakens as fatalities could be due to older car and has nothing to do with driver's skill.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others. Weakens as this is not related to driving skills
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others. Strengthen. As teenage drivers lacks skills, their accidents are more severe in nature. so this is the answer
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm reading this question is: "Find 4 A/C that Weaken the argument, and the A/C that does not do this is your answer". Technically, A/Cs that are irrelevant to driving skills (i.e. A, C, E) do not Weaken the idea that teens lack basic driving skills.

To clarify, the Q does not ask: tell me which A/C "Strengthens" the idea that teens lack basic driving skills. The Q asks "tells me which does not weaken". This can be done 2 ways: 1) by "strengthening" ; 2) and by not weakening

You are right. Other than D, the rest of the options does weakens the claim that teens lack driving skills. Only D does support/strengthen the argument and hence the correct answer.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9848
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

19 Jan 2017, 02:55
YangYichen wrote:
Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.

- Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.

We need to find that option which does not weaken "teenagers lack basic skills". Rest all options will weaken this. So they will give alternative explanation on why young drivers make up only 7% of registered drivers but are responsible for 14% fatalities.

(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.
The car could be the reason. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.
Not taking safety precautions could be the reason. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.
They drive more and hence are more prone to accidents. The teenagers' basic skills may not be a problem.

(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.
Here the problem is teenagers' skills.

(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.
More people in the car is the reason for more fatalities. The teenagers basic skills may not be a problem.

_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2017, 17:10
deenesh2309 wrote:
LakerFan24 wrote:
deenesh2309 wrote:

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ licenses of teenagers because teenagers lack basic skills. Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered driers, there are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument that teenagers lack basic driving skill EXCEPT:
(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers. Weakens as fatalities could be due to older car and has nothing to do with driver's skill.
(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others. Weakens as this is not related to driving skills
(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills
(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others. Strengthen. As teenage drivers lacks skills, their accidents are more severe in nature. so this is the answer
(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver. No impact as this is not relevant to driving skills

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I'm reading this question is: "Find 4 A/C that Weaken the argument, and the A/C that does not do this is your answer". Technically, A/Cs that are irrelevant to driving skills (i.e. A, C, E) do not Weaken the idea that teens lack basic driving skills.

To clarify, the Q does not ask: tell me which A/C "Strengthens" the idea that teens lack basic driving skills. The Q asks "tells me which does not weaken". This can be done 2 ways: 1) by "strengthening" ; 2) and by not weakening

You are right. Other than D, the rest of the options does weakens the claim that teens lack driving skills. Only D does support/strengthen the argument and hence the correct answer.

Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but I can't see how that makes sense.

Again, the Conclusion is that teens LACK driving skills. We do NOT want to weaken this (hence "Weaken EXCEPT". Therefore, there "should" be 4 A/C that "WEAKEN" the argument, and we want the A/C that does NOT do this. So, if I want to "Strengthen" this, I could say, "yeah, they don't put on their seatbelts (B), so yes they do lack basic driving skills...this is one of the first safety precautions/things you learn when you begin driving, or I could say "yeah, they lack driving skills b/c they cause really serious car accidents so they must not know what they're doing (D).

BUT the main problem I have w/ the A/C below is that I do not believe any of them WEAKEN the argument, which is where I'm getting confused
- (A) If you told me "Teens LACK driving skills" and then say "They drive older and less stable cars" I'd say "this sentence does not WEAKEN the idea that teens suck at driving b/c maybe they can't afford newer/more stable cars, but they may still be careful drivers".
- (C) If you told me "they drive a lot more than other drivers", I'd say "well yeah but again this doesn't weaken the idea that teens can't drive well b/c this tells me nothing about their driving skills sucking -- what if they're really careful on the road?",
- (E) If you told me "hey they have a lot of passengers", I'd say "again this doesn't WEAKEN the idea that teens cannot drive well -- maybe their passengers are not a distraction to the driver, maybe the driver has good driving skills still"

VeritasPrepKarishma, can you please explain where I'm going wrong here?
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 9848
Location: Pune, India

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2017, 21:26
1
LakerFan24 wrote:
Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but I can't see how that makes sense.

Again, the Conclusion is that teens LACK driving skills. We do NOT want to weaken this (hence "Weaken EXCEPT". Therefore, there "should" be 4 A/C that "WEAKEN" the argument, and we want the A/C that does NOT do this. So, if I want to "Strengthen" this, I could say, "yeah, they don't put on their seatbelts (B), so yes they do lack basic driving skills...this is one of the first safety precautions/things you learn when you begin driving, or I could say "yeah, they lack driving skills b/c they cause really serious car accidents so they must not know what they're doing (D).

BUT the main problem I have w/ the A/C below is that I do not believe any of them WEAKEN the argument, which is where I'm getting confused
- (A) If you told me "Teens LACK driving skills" and then say "They drive older and less stable cars" I'd say "this sentence does not WEAKEN the idea that teens suck at driving b/c maybe they can't afford newer/more stable cars, but they may still be careful drivers".
- (C) If you told me "they drive a lot more than other drivers", I'd say "well yeah but again this doesn't weaken the idea that teens can't drive well b/c this tells me nothing about their driving skills sucking -- what if they're really careful on the road?",
- (E) If you told me "hey they have a lot of passengers", I'd say "again this doesn't WEAKEN the idea that teens cannot drive well -- maybe their passengers are not a distraction to the driver, maybe the driver has good driving skills still"

VeritasPrepKarishma, can you please explain where I'm going wrong here?

The reason A and C weaken the argument is the data on which the conclusion is based.

Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
This makes the author argue that teens lack basic skills.

But if he is told that teens drive old cars, could that explain that they are responsible for over 14% fatalities? Yes. Old and less stable cars are likely to lead to more fatalities if they are in an accident. So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills.

Same logic for (C).

(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.

If teenagers drive more, the chance of an accident increases. It is just about probabilities. If a person drives 20 km a day, the probability of an accident is higher than if the same person travels 10 km every day.
So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills. The extra drive could be the reason for the higher number of fatalities.
_________________
Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 232
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)

### Show Tags

22 Jan 2017, 22:18
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
LakerFan24 wrote:
Maybe I'm reading this the wrong way, but I can't see how that makes sense.

Again, the Conclusion is that teens LACK driving skills. We do NOT want to weaken this (hence "Weaken EXCEPT". Therefore, there "should" be 4 A/C that "WEAKEN" the argument, and we want the A/C that does NOT do this. So, if I want to "Strengthen" this, I could say, "yeah, they don't put on their seatbelts (B), so yes they do lack basic driving skills...this is one of the first safety precautions/things you learn when you begin driving, or I could say "yeah, they lack driving skills b/c they cause really serious car accidents so they must not know what they're doing (D).

BUT the main problem I have w/ the A/C below is that I do not believe any of them WEAKEN the argument, which is where I'm getting confused
- (A) If you told me "Teens LACK driving skills" and then say "They drive older and less stable cars" I'd say "this sentence does not WEAKEN the idea that teens suck at driving b/c maybe they can't afford newer/more stable cars, but they may still be careful drivers".
- (C) If you told me "they drive a lot more than other drivers", I'd say "well yeah but again this doesn't weaken the idea that teens can't drive well b/c this tells me nothing about their driving skills sucking -- what if they're really careful on the road?",
- (E) If you told me "hey they have a lot of passengers", I'd say "again this doesn't WEAKEN the idea that teens cannot drive well -- maybe their passengers are not a distraction to the driver, maybe the driver has good driving skills still"

VeritasPrepKarishma, can you please explain where I'm going wrong here?

The reason A and C weaken the argument is the data on which the conclusion is based.

Even though drivers of age nineteen and younger make up only 7 percent of registered drivers, they are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.
This makes the author argue that teens lack basic skills.

But if he is told that teens drive old cars, could that explain that they are responsible for over 14% fatalities? Yes. Old and less stable cars are likely to lead to more fatalities if they are in an accident. So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills.

Same logic for (C).

(C) Teenagers drive, on average, over twice as far each year as other drivers.

If teenagers drive more, the chance of an accident increases. It is just about probabilities. If a person drives 20 km a day, the probability of an accident is higher than if the same person travels 10 km every day.
So it weakens the author's claim that teens lack basic skills. The extra drive could be the reason for the higher number of fatalities.

+1 Kudos. Thank you so much - makes complete sense now
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 7158

### Show Tags

19 Nov 2019, 23:32
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.
Re: Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic   [#permalink] 19 Nov 2019, 23:32
Display posts from previous: Sort by