Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic

Question

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 drivers, they 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.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

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.

Option D - Correct Answer.
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.

KarishmaB · Answer

- 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.

Answer (D)

LakerFan24 · 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?

KarishmaB · Answer

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.

Axwe7 · Answer

KarishmaB   MartyMurray

I understand that, in order to answer this question correctly, you must identify the choice that does not weaken the answer. So, you have to find the choice that indicates that the reason teenagers are responsible for the crash is NOT because of a reason other than 'lacking basic skills'.

I interpreted that putting safety belts on and shoulder straps falls under basic skills, so, I went with Option B.

Further, just because they lack basic skills, it does not necessarily mean that their crashes are more serious. They could be driving faster etc.

Putting on seatbelts, to me, feels as if it's closer to 'basic skills'.

MartyMurray · Answer

Answering this question, we may need to make the call that "driving skills" are skills involved in operating a car without crashing into something else.

One clue that helps us do so is noticing that choice (B) mentions what "passengers" do. So, even if we wonder whether seatbelt use is a driving skill, the fact that teenage drivers' passengers do not wear seatbelts would be an alternative cause of the disproportionately high fatality rate associated with teenage drivers. After all, in that case, the high fatality rate could to an extent be attributed to the actions of passengers rather than drivers.

So, by mentioning the actions of passengers, (B) does provide a reason to doubt that the reason for the disproportionate fatality rate is weaker driving skills.

(D), on the other hand, doesn't indicate that teenagers don't lack driving skills. After all, serious accidents could be the result of a lack of driving skills, and at least the fact that teenagers cause more serious accidents doesn't conflict with the idea that they lack skills.

That said, I agree that there's some ambiguity to this question, which results in (B) seeming possibly correct, meaning that this question is not ideally constructed. At the same time, I think this question is gettable, particularly because (B) mentions what passengers do.

egmat · Answer

Hi Axwe7,

You've got the mechanics of the question exactly right: you're hunting for the one choice that does  not  give an alternative, non-skill reason for the fatality gap. The slip is in what "basic driving skills" actually covers.

Why B still weakens

The conclusion is about  driving  skill - how well a teen controls and operates a car, which is what would cause a crash in the first place. Wearing a seat belt does nothing to prevent a crash; it changes only how deadly a crash is  once it happens .

So choice  B  - "less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps" - explains the higher share of  fatalities  without touching driving ability. Teens could be perfectly skilled drivers but die more often per accident simply because they're unbelted. That's an alternative explanation, so it weakens. Seat-belt use is a  safety habit , not a driving skill.

Why D does not weaken

Here's the test for every choice:  does it give a reason for the numbers that isn't "bad driving"?

-  A  (old cars),  B  (no seat belts),  C  (more miles),  E  (more passengers) - each hands you a reason for more fatalities that has nothing to do with skill.
-  D  - "cause car accidents that are more serious" - causing more serious accidents is exactly what poor driving would produce. It offers  no  competing explanation; if anything it fits the author's claim. That's why it's the EXCEPT answer.

Your idea that they "could be driving faster" is actually pointing the same direction - reckless speed  is  a skill/judgment failure, so it doesn't rescue D.

Turn one knob to feel it

Watch how the answer would flip if D read differently:

- "Teenagers' accidents are more serious  because the roads they drive are icier " - now it weakens (outside cause).
- "Teenagers' accidents are more serious" (as written) - no outside cause, so it doesn't weaken.

The difference is always: does the choice point  away  from skill, or not?

Answer: D

guddo · Answer

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 drivers, they 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:

The argument says teenagers must lack basic driving skills because they are only 7 percent of registered drivers but are responsible for over 14 percent of traffic fatalities.  To weaken this , an answer must give another explanation for the higher fatality rate, one that does not depend on  poor driving skill .

(A) Teenagers tend to drive older and less stable cars than other drivers.

This weakens the argument. Older and less stable cars could explain more fatalities without showing that teenagers lack driving skill.

(B) Teenagers and their passengers are less likely to use seat belts and shoulder straps than others.

This weakens the argument. More fatalities could result from lower seat-belt use, not necessarily worse driving skill.

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

This weakens the argument. If teenagers drive much more, then they have more exposure to accidents. That could explain why they account for a higher share of fatalities.

(D) Teenagers cause car accidents that are more serious than those caused by others.

This does not weaken the argument. If teenagers cause more serious accidents, that supports the idea that their driving may be worse.

(E) Teenagers are likely to drive with more passengers than the average driver.

This weakens the argument. More passengers can mean more fatalities per accident, even if the teenager’s driving skill is not worse.

Answer: (D)

KarishmaB · Answer

I do understand where you are coming from but here is the thing - I may shortlist (B) in the first run of the options assuming ensuring seat belts for self and others in the car are part of the basic car driving skill but then I come to (D). (D) does not comment on whether basic skills are involved or not. So it doesn't weaken " teenagers lack basic driving skill." In fact a case could be made that lack of basic skills leads to more serious accidents - they are unable to swerve on time or pump the breaks repeatedly etc. - whatever may be required of an expert driver in a dangerous situation. Hence (D) certainly does not weaken it. 
Then we may consider (B) to be outside the scope of "basic driving skills".

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorialist: Additional restrictions should be placed on drivers’ lic

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia