In 1975, the number of automobile related deaths among young people ag

In this option we talk about the entire population as no specific age group is mentioned and moreover in the qn only the teenagers form the topic of discussion .it's perfectly attacked in B .
Thus B

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

Right, but if the chances of getting killed of the entire populations has decreased, it implies that the chances of age group mentioned have also decreased since, improvement in tech will affect the security proportionally. Still, deaths of teenagers have increased. So?


Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

I am looking for an explanation for option D.
My logic: If the technology has improved in the vehicles, then, it should have caused fewer accidents, but still deaths due to accidents have increased. This means, younger people are getting careless.

Can you please correct this if it's wrong?

Thanks.

Agreed -why isn't the answer D?

Option B, in my opinion, strengthens the argument. It states 4X as many teens are driving than before, which could explain why the accident rate went up 4x.
In this answer we are looking for a weaken correct? Maybe it is in the wrong section, if not I am with D.

n 1975, the number of automobile related deaths among young people ages 16-21 was about 10,000. In 2000, this number was closer to 40,000. Clearly, today's young people drive much more recklessly and are more accident prone than were those in 1975.

Which of the following statements, if true, would most weaken the argument made above?

A) There were fewer traffic laws and regulations in 1975 compared with those in 2000.- This would strengthen the arg by providing evidence and thus an inference that even though there were fewer laws the 1975 ppl were more careful (referring the passage stats)
B) Between 1975 and 2000, the number of licensed teenagers in the country more than quadrupled.- The argument states that 10,000 young ppl were involved in accident in 1975. In 2000 the number was 40,000. Assumption- The total number of young peeps driving remained constant ( The argument just talks about raw numbers but does not provide a sound analytical proof.) What option B tells us that the licenced young PPL quadrupled from 1975 to 2000. Use numbers. consider x as 1975 young peeps with licensed and 5x for 2000 (more than quadrupled)
C) Surveys show that young drivers tend to drive more recklessly when there are other passengers of the same age riding in the car.- out of scope
D) Improvements to automobile safety technology have significantly reduced the chances of being killed in an automobile accident.- strengthening the conclusion. Even when technology has improved safety the numbers still are still bad. Then the conclusion of recklessness is valid.
E) According to insurance data, senior citizens, not teenagers, had the highest per-driver accident rate in 2000.-out of context.

Official solution from VeritasPrep:

This Weaken problem showcases a common type of Strengthen/Weaken data flaw: when premises include data, you want to make sure that they use the right kind of data. One of the most common ways that an argument will use the "wrong kind" of data is when a premise uses absolute number data (40,000 vs. 10,000 here) when percentage or per-capita data is necessary to draw any kind of conclusion.

Here, consider the total teen driver population in 1975 vs. 2000. Population is known to increase over time: what if there were more than 4x as many teenagers in 2000 as there were in 1975? What if the age limit for driver's licenses was 20 in 1975 but 16 in 2000: that would also mean that there were likely way more drivers in this age group in 2000 than in 1975. This should show - in many cases, absolute number data is not a good metric upon which to draw a conclusion.

If you recognize that, you should anticipate answer choice B. If there are more than 4x as many drivers but only 4x the number of accidents, driving has actually become safer and there is no basis for drawing the conclusion. Choice B is therefore correct.

Among the incorrect answer choices: Answer choice A is incorrect because traffic laws do not necessarily relate to the recklessness of young drivers. Choice C does not relate the differences in driving habits between young drivers in 1975 and those in 2000. Answer choice D actually strengthens the argument. If safety technology were improving, then there should be fewer deaths. E is incorrect because senior citizens are outside the scope of the argument.

iamhgupta Studious1
There are two very important problems with D:

1) It doesn't support any one explanation of the statistics presented. If tech has improved car safety, then we'd expect fewer deaths. We want to understand why these deaths are occurring. Reckless driving is certainly one possibility, but why not something else? With the addition of D, why is that particular explanation any more compelling than it was before? It could just as well support the idea that, say, roads have fallen into dangerous disrepair, or modern prescription medicines are impairing people's ability to drive.

2) If you look carefully, you can see that D doesn't just say that cars are safer. It says that the chances of being killed have actually gone down! So unless young drivers don't fit that general trend (we don't have enough data to say), we don't need to find an explanation for why people are dying in crashes more often, because they're not! This sets us up to spot the statistical flaw in this argument: an increase in number is not the same as an increase in proportion! This flaw shows up all the time.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.