Dear Karishma,
First of all thank you for providing this opportunity for support!!!
About: https://gmatclub.com/forum/a-recent-rep ... 86145.html I would like to share with you two ways of analysing the question and the OA. Can you give me feedback if my logic is right?
Lastly, I have two additional questions. I. Conditional reasoning/form of argument Premises:
If driver equipped with radar, then part of 3% of all drivers
If driver equipped with radar, then 33% of all ticketed for speeding
Conclusion:
If driver equipped with radar, then more likely to speed regularly
Flaw: Missing link
We have:
x--> y
x--> Z
x--> k
There is a missing link between particularly z & k. This is what the OA establishes.
II. Using the concept of weighted average Two subgroups: ticketed (a) and Not ticketed (b)
We know: those with a radar have a higher share (33%) in a than in b (must be<3%). So if those with radar have a specific characteristic more than those without radar, then this characteristic must also have a higher share in a than in b. This is what the OA establishes.
III. Additional question Is it possible to infer from the given whether (those ticketed & have a radar) > 1/2 (all with radar) ?
IV. Additional question What strategy do you generally recommend for analyzing the argument during the test. It is heIping my understanding now, but am slightly worried that it will take me too much time to write down every argument in its conditional form. And I also worry that I start abstracting too much and loose the ability to employ "real world thinking". Happy to hear your advice.
Many thanks!