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.
Mar 2709:30 AM PDT
-10:30 AM PDT
Preparing for the GMAT? Avoid these 5 major mistakes that can lower your score and hurt your MBA dreams. In this expert panel discussion, 4 top GMAT coaches - GMAT Ninja, Jeff Miller from TTP, Rida Shafiq from eGMAT, and Chris Gentry from Manhattan Prep- Mar 27
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
What happens after getting an MBA? Is it worth the investment? To find out, I interviewed 10 GMAT Club professionals who have completed their MBAs and built careers in consulting, finance, tech, and entrepreneurship. Their answers might surprise you! 
Mar 2911:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Mar 3005:30 AM PDT
-07:30 AM PDT
We know Strengthen and Weaken questions account for more than 50% of the CR questions on the GMAT. With CR becoming even more important on GMAT Focus, it's time you strengthen your weaknesses with an approach that improves your solving time and accuracy!
Mar 3011:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions.
Mar 3110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
The Target Test Prep team has recently introduced TTP OnDemand GMAT, a 400-hour live masterclass video course created by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder and CEO of Target Test Prep.
Apr 0308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
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
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
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.(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
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: 195
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
I go with A.
Since, The argument states that:
Insurance costs = G > F and # Collisions = F > G.
Therefore author might have assumed that Collision cost are less in G. Since, there is a possibility that, the collisions cost can be higher even if the # of collisions are less. So definitely the answer should be in that terms for the authors conclusion to be true.
Since, The argument states that:
Insurance costs = G > F and # Collisions = F > G.
Therefore author might have assumed that Collision cost are less in G. Since, there is a possibility that, the collisions cost can be higher even if the # of collisions are less. So definitely the answer should be in that terms for the authors conclusion to be true.
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
