maha2804
For insurance company to make a profit they either must have least number of claims or they have to minimize each payout
Now choice B talks about the number of motorists. Doesn't talk about the number of motorist who will claim. Doesn't affect the conclusion about making greater profit even when it is negated.
Option C kind of weakens the
Conclusion. It says more claims are likely to be filed thereby affecting the profit. Negating C doesn't shatter the conclusion.
Option A on the other hand says the payout for damage is going to be less in Greenport. Negate A payout is going to be more hence the profit is going to be lesser.
Please let me know if I might have overlooked anything in my reasoning.
Sent from my ONE E1003 using
GMAT Club Forum mobile appHey Maha,
This is how I convinced myself. Leme know if you see any flaws in this logic:
The argument states that Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.
Profit = Revenue - Claims for each
PT: The claims are not going to be higher in GF.
A. Correct. It ignores the price of the claims. If A is negated it can break the argument. Correct
B. This doesn't talk about the greater profit part because if more motorists are there then there will be more revenue and yet not greater profits.
C. Also on similar lines because despite more claims in GP both can earn same amnt of profit due to more exp repairs in greatport.
X had 100 insured ppl, 60 claimed full insurance because of cost = profit on the 60 is zero. Remaining profits = 40
Y had 90 insured insured ppl, 60 claimed insurance but because the repairs are cheaper they claimed .5 . Remaining profits = 90 - .30 = 60
So, B has no effect on conclusion on being negated. Similarly C is also on similar lines. if u reduce the no. of claims in Y.