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.
02 Jul 2025, 13:24
Kudos
Bookmarks
A. In reporting accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, the traffic police sometimes incorrectly attribute the accidents to a cause other than drivers ignoring traffic lights. this trend was same before & after the measure.
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year. Correct. Accidents from other cause rose so sharply that the % decreased.
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year. May not be most reliable, but may be somewhat helpful
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police. other factors are irrelevant.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents. Out of scope
Ans B
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year. Correct. Accidents from other cause rose so sharply that the % decreased.
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year. May not be most reliable, but may be somewhat helpful
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police. other factors are irrelevant.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents. Out of scope
Ans B
02 Jul 2025, 13:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO, A is correct answer. We are looking for a option, that weakens the city resident's reasoning in the argument
A. In reporting accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, the traffic police sometimes incorrectly attribute the accidents to a cause other than drivers ignoring traffic lights.
This clearly highlights the flaw in the reasoning. The percentage of accidents due to ignoring traffic light has fallen, not because police have listened to the inquests, but because they are not reporting it as accidents due to ignoring traffic light.
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year.
This does not bring any new information. It is mentioned in the question " Although accidents caused by other factors will not be eliminated". Also it does not highlight the flaw in the reasoning.
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year.
Irrelevant, the number of inquests, does not highlight the flaw in reasoning.
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police.
Increase in inquests for accidents caused by other factors, doesn't indicate that police has not listened to inquests of ignoring traffic lights.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents.
This kind of strengthens the argument. Also it doesn't impact the reasoning of city resident.
A. In reporting accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, the traffic police sometimes incorrectly attribute the accidents to a cause other than drivers ignoring traffic lights.
This clearly highlights the flaw in the reasoning. The percentage of accidents due to ignoring traffic light has fallen, not because police have listened to the inquests, but because they are not reporting it as accidents due to ignoring traffic light.
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year.
This does not bring any new information. It is mentioned in the question " Although accidents caused by other factors will not be eliminated". Also it does not highlight the flaw in the reasoning.
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year.
Irrelevant, the number of inquests, does not highlight the flaw in reasoning.
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police.
Increase in inquests for accidents caused by other factors, doesn't indicate that police has not listened to inquests of ignoring traffic lights.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents.
This kind of strengthens the argument. Also it doesn't impact the reasoning of city resident.
Bunuel
02 Jul 2025, 15:17
Kudos
Bookmarks
My answer choice: B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year.
Rationale
In the passage, we are first told the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has fallen considerably. We can then inference the city resident categorizes "accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights" as "preventable traffic safety issues" because they say "this means that the traffic police listened to our inquests regarding preventable traffic safety issues," implying the former is synonymous with the latter, which becomes important when the conclusion later states "accidents that happen due to preventable traffic safety issues are certainly decreasing."
Here, we are given direct connections between "what" is being compared (even if the wording is different), however, there is a potential discrepancy in how they discuss values, first by mentioning percentages and then generally "accidents decreasing."
A. In reporting accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, the traffic police sometimes incorrectly attribute the accidents to a cause other than drivers ignoring traffic lights. --> Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true.
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year. --> This statement will not contradict the premise that the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has decreased but challenges the conclusion. If accidents other than drivers ignoring traffic lights has increased, then the number of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights can stay exactly the same or even increase while its overall percentage relative to the total number of accidents continues to decrease. Example with numbers:
Last year:
Scenario 1: stays the same
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year. --> [i]Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true. [/i]
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police. --> This answer is close to answer B in that it attempts to demonstrate the possibility that other factors increased, which wouldn't necessarily mean the preventable accidents caused by ignoring lights decreased, but we aren't given strong connections to draw this conclusion. Based on the information in the passage, the premises do not explicitly tell us what happens with inquests that pertain to "other factors," only that "the traffic police listened to our inquests regarding preventable traffic issues and took the measures needed to resolve the issues." In other words, if the inquests pertaining to other factors increased, does that mean the police didn't take actions to resolve the issues and they subsequently rose, possibly creating the scenario in B? What if they did take actions, does that mean the accidents caused by preventable issues didn't actually decrease while the percentage decreased? I'm sure there are other questions we could ask that demonstrate the overall lack of clarity.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents. --> Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true.
Rationale
In the passage, we are first told the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has fallen considerably. We can then inference the city resident categorizes "accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights" as "preventable traffic safety issues" because they say "this means that the traffic police listened to our inquests regarding preventable traffic safety issues," implying the former is synonymous with the latter, which becomes important when the conclusion later states "accidents that happen due to preventable traffic safety issues are certainly decreasing."
Here, we are given direct connections between "what" is being compared (even if the wording is different), however, there is a potential discrepancy in how they discuss values, first by mentioning percentages and then generally "accidents decreasing."
A. In reporting accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, the traffic police sometimes incorrectly attribute the accidents to a cause other than drivers ignoring traffic lights. --> Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true.
B. Accidents caused by factors other than drivers ignoring traffic lights could have risen sharply in number during the relevant year. --> This statement will not contradict the premise that the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has decreased but challenges the conclusion. If accidents other than drivers ignoring traffic lights has increased, then the number of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights can stay exactly the same or even increase while its overall percentage relative to the total number of accidents continues to decrease. Example with numbers:
Last year:
- Total Accidents: 100
- Ignoring Traffic Lights: 30 (30%)
- All other factors: 70 (70%)
Scenario 1: stays the same
- Total Accidents: 200
- Ignoring Traffic Lights: 30 (15%, a decrease from last year)
- All other factors: 170 (85%)
- Total accidents: 200
- Ignoring Traffic Lights: 40 (20%, a decrease from last year)
- All other factors: 160 (80%)
C. It is possible that inquests made with the traffic police are not the most reliable way to ascertain how many accidents took place in a particular year. --> [i]Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true. [/i]
D. The accidents caused by other factors may have increased the number of inquests made with the traffic police. --> This answer is close to answer B in that it attempts to demonstrate the possibility that other factors increased, which wouldn't necessarily mean the preventable accidents caused by ignoring lights decreased, but we aren't given strong connections to draw this conclusion. Based on the information in the passage, the premises do not explicitly tell us what happens with inquests that pertain to "other factors," only that "the traffic police listened to our inquests regarding preventable traffic issues and took the measures needed to resolve the issues." In other words, if the inquests pertaining to other factors increased, does that mean the police didn't take actions to resolve the issues and they subsequently rose, possibly creating the scenario in B? What if they did take actions, does that mean the accidents caused by preventable issues didn't actually decrease while the percentage decreased? I'm sure there are other questions we could ask that demonstrate the overall lack of clarity.
E. In some accidents caused due to drivers ignoring traffic light, city residents many not believe that drivers ignoring traffic lights was the cause of the accidents. --> Even if this were true, we are given the premise that the percentage of accidents has decreased, which we must consider true.
