GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 13 Oct 2019, 23:08

### 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

# In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 15:17
1
10
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:51) correct 48% (02:05) wrong based on 316 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians
B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years

_________________
SVP
Joined: 26 Mar 2013
Posts: 2341
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2015, 15:31
Harley1980 wrote:
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians
B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years

Hi Harley,
Can you please explain why choice B is correct?

Thanks
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
Re: In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 10:46
1
Mo2men wrote:
Harley1980 wrote:
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians
B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years

Hi Harley,
Can you please explain why choice B is correct?

Thanks

Hello Mo2men

The argument make a comparison by using total numbers and this is incorrect.
For example in country A we have 100 fatalities and in country B 1000 fatalities
Looks like country A is much safer but what if in country A live on 200 people and in country B 1000000 people? B is much safer in these case.

Conclusion of the argument is wrong because California is less when USA so 4,736 fatalities in California lead to the much bigger rate of fatalities per person than 4,810 nationwide.

The answer B says that if we make this comparison per 1000 person then we will see that conclusion is wrong.
_________________
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1096
Location: India
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 11:46
Quote:
The argument make a comparison by using total numbers and this is incorrect.
For example in country A we have 100 fatalities and in country B 1000 fatalities
Looks like country A is much safer but what if in country A live on 200 people and in country B 1000000 people? B is much safer in these case.

Conclusion of the argument is wrong because California is less when USA so 4,736 fatalities in California lead to the much bigger rate of fatalities per person than 4,810 nationwide.

In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians(They are taken combined. Negates the premise.)

B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties

C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide(We have fatalities of all accidents in California not of only motorcycle accidents.)

D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups(We don't have fatalities Nationwide.)

E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years(This is not true acc to argument.)

So remaining only B but selected C missing the above logic.
Can you explain option C?
Retired Moderator
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 1220
Location: Ukraine
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q48 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q50 V40
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Sep 2015, 14:49
Mechmeera wrote:
Quote:
The argument make a comparison by using total numbers and this is incorrect.
For example in country A we have 100 fatalities and in country B 1000 fatalities
Looks like country A is much safer but what if in country A live on 200 people and in country B 1000000 people? B is much safer in these case.

Conclusion of the argument is wrong because California is less when USA so 4,736 fatalities in California lead to the much bigger rate of fatalities per person than 4,810 nationwide.

In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians(They are taken combined. Negates the premise.)

B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties

C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide(We have fatalities of all accidents in California not of only motorcycle accidents.)

D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups(We don't have fatalities Nationwide.)

E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years(This is not true acc to argument.)

So remaining only B but selected C missing the above logic.
Can you explain option C?

Hello Mechmeera

We need to compare motorcycle fatalities in USA with car fatalities in California and decide what is more often in terms of probability. So comparison of motorcycle fatalities of USA and California does not help.

For example we have 200 motorcycle fatalities in California and 4610 in USA.
This information does not influence logical flaw in the argument because it still has an error of comparison total numbers from absolutely different areas with different number of people.

Actually we can make inference from this information that California is less than USA so possibily the comparison is wrong but firstly this is a little too far for CR question and secondly B makes it in a more direct way.
_________________
Manager
Joined: 01 Jun 2013
Posts: 102
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V27
Re: In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Sep 2015, 23:32
Harley1980 wrote:
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

A) Comparing the number of fatalities seperately for drivers and for pedestrians
B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years

Again, one more time, Question stem played the critical role in solving the question.

Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?

If B is provided, we will be able to EXPOSE the logical flaw easily.
_________________
Please kindly click on "+1 Kudos", if you think my post is useful
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 5887
Re: In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2019, 10:40
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.
_________________
Re: In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in   [#permalink] 31 Jan 2019, 10:40
Display posts from previous: Sort by