It is currently 22 Jun 2017, 20:47

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

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for

Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 07 Mar 2003
Posts: 1

Show Tags

14 Feb 2006, 14:39
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 21 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Friends,

I got this from the LSAT website.

Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often
higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim
that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If
this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because
the argument

(A) accepts without question that insurance
companies have the right to charge higher

(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to
repair as cars of other colors

(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive
recklessly have a preference for red cars

(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red
cars are involved in accidents

(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every
automobile accident results in some loss of life

I think the answer is E.

But they say it is C.

Am I missing something ?

Thanks,

avi
Manager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 134

Show Tags

14 Feb 2006, 14:50
I got C too.
... if red cars are banned then also careless drivers will still drive some other colored cars. The no. of accidents will not go down and people will still lose lives.

I think E uses an assumption also that loss of life is propotional to the number of accidents but I think the assumption in C is "more" incorrect.

....actually on second thoughts...the statment in E is not really an assumption of the argument. The argument does not say that that EVERY accident will lead to a death.
Manager
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 104
Location: Barcelona

Show Tags

14 Feb 2006, 16:15
E seemed to be the best on the first glance;however, E streches the assumption that "every" accident results in loss of life which is not exactly the assumption.

The assumption is that accidents results in loss of life and not every accident.

After jumping over easy trap set in E, I find that C is right answer.
_________________

...................................................................

Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 27

Show Tags

14 Feb 2006, 17:39

Conclusion: Life will be saved by banning red cars.

What is the reasoning that will weaken the above conclusion.

(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars --> By banning red cars, we wont be keeping the reckless drivers off the road. Hence life is still at stake every after banning red cars.

(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life --> every automobile accident doesnot lead to loss. But every accident involving red car MAY lead to death. This reasoning is not strong enough to weaken the above conclusion.
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5218

Show Tags

17 Feb 2006, 22:49
This is a cause and effect CR. Only (C) suggests some other legitimate and plausible cause to weaken the argument.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 335
Location: United States
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Re: Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for [#permalink]

Show Tags

17 Aug 2016, 07:24
This is the explanation from Manhattan by noah. Hope this clears

Quote:
The core of this conclusion is:

red cars are in greater % of accidents --> lives saved by banning red cars

Read like a debater. Why might it be that lives would NOT be saved by banning the red cars? As you stated, perhaps those drivers will simply go and drive recklessly in their blue cars. That's the flaw in this argument, as (C) notes.

(A) is out of scope. Premiums is not part of the core.

(B) is out of scope. Cost?

(D) is too picky! Why does the argument need a specific percentage? It's enough to say that it's greater.

(E) is untrue. The argument does not assume that every car accident results in someone dieing. Perhaps there's an assumption that at least some accidents result in death, but not ALL.

You need to stand your ground with flaw answer choices and ask "Did the argument really do that?"
Re: Friends, I got this from the LSAT website. Premiums for   [#permalink] 17 Aug 2016, 07:24
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 Premiums for automobile| 1 17 Aug 2016, 07:19
1 Driver: My friends say I will one day have an accident 4 28 Nov 2012, 23:01
Where do I find LSAT CR practice 2 02 Jun 2012, 23:31
116 A bunch of CR questions I got from a local GMAT club 700 8 16 Dec 2015, 02:18
From LSAT: Many people change their wills on their own every 9 19 Oct 2016, 04:52
Display posts from previous: Sort by