Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
14 Nov 2020, 07:20
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let us look into the contenders for the answer :
(A) Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont.
(B) There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont.
I understand that option A is correct. But the option B can not be rejected because it is talking about the absolute number whereas question stem talks about the average - as pointed out in other replies. In fact, "absolute number" makes this option viable contender. An average is similar to percentage. If the average collision is less then it doesn't mean that associated absolute number is also less. So if the average number of collision in GreatPort is less, it does not mean that total number of collision in the city is fewer than in Fairmont.
As per this understanding, experts could you help me as to how the option B can be rejected. Only reason comes to my mind for its rejection is that if the absolute number of collisions of insured vehicle is more - in spite of less average - then it also means that more insurance money paid to the customer is counter balanced by more insurance premium collected, hence earning more profits.
Hi AndrewN,
Your insight is needed. Thanks in advance
(A) Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont.
(B) There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont.
I understand that option A is correct. But the option B can not be rejected because it is talking about the absolute number whereas question stem talks about the average - as pointed out in other replies. In fact, "absolute number" makes this option viable contender. An average is similar to percentage. If the average collision is less then it doesn't mean that associated absolute number is also less. So if the average number of collision in GreatPort is less, it does not mean that total number of collision in the city is fewer than in Fairmont.
As per this understanding, experts could you help me as to how the option B can be rejected. Only reason comes to my mind for its rejection is that if the absolute number of collisions of insured vehicle is more - in spite of less average - then it also means that more insurance money paid to the customer is counter balanced by more insurance premium collected, hence earning more profits.
Hi AndrewN,
Your insight is needed. Thanks in advance
14 Nov 2020, 09:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
abhishekmayank
The problem with (B), abhishekmayank, is that it makes no difference one way or the other whether there are more motorists in Greatport. An assumption is a condition that must hold for the argument to make sense. This argument, that insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont, could be based on the same number of motorists in each of Greatport and Fairmont, or it could be based on a different number. Your reasoning traces a could-be-true scenario when a must-be-true is needed instead. I agree with nightblade354 that (A) hinges upon the test-taker filling in the blank that insurance companies, not motorists, foot the bill to repair collision damage, but if (A) were not true, then that clearly in the conclusion is quite hard to justify.
I hope that helps. Thank you for thinking to ask me about the question.
- Andrew
mk96
Joined: 14 Mar 2018
Last visit: 18 Sep 2022
Posts: 79
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 194
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools: IIMA PGPX'22
GPA: 4
WE:Corporate Finance (Finance: Investment Banking)
04 Feb 2021, 21:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
HARRY113
what bearing does the information "insurance costs are higher in G than F" have on our analysis. Insurance costs are something that the car owners would have to born right? But when it comes to profit made by insurance companies in respective regions, then angle of cost would come into play right?
Because what confuses me is that what was the need at all but the author to provide us with the "For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more
in Great port than in Fairmont."
Please, someone, respond. Proper explanations and analysis is appreciated.
Thanks,
MK
