In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large ov

Question

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined. This leads to the conclusion that, overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago.

Each of the statements below, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

(A) Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia.

(B) Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project.

(C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.

(D) The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years.

(E) In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

To see how D weakens the argument, let's first take a look at the argument in the passage:

The author concludes that "the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skilful drivers now than five years ago."
 
 To support this conclusion, the author states that while the number of people that are of driving-age in Australia has  increased, fewer people  are dying in traffic incidents.

(D) tells us the number of hospital emergency facilities has doubled in Australia in the last five years. This means that there is a higher chance someone involved in a traffic incident could be successfully treated, and their death prevented.

This means that it's possible that the  number of traffic accidents  has increased, but traffic-related  fatalities  have decreased.

So, if (D) is true, maybe Australians are just as bad at driving as they used to be -- they are just less likely to die in a car crash because they now have better access to hospital emergency facilities. This weakens the argument that the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago. You can eliminate (D).

I hope that helps!

surendrasaini1 · Answer

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined. This leads to the conclusion that, overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago.

Each of the statements below, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

(A) Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia. ( Weakner)
(B) Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project.(weakner)
(C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.( Weakner)
(D) The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years. ( Correct,it contradicts the argument)
(E) In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.( Weakner)

Will go with choice D

Thanks

Diwakar003 · Answer

Premise: The population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined
Conclusion: The decline is because of skillful drivers.

(A) Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia. - This MAY provide an alternate reason for the reduction in number of accidents.
(B) Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project. - Hold 
(C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year. - This weakens by giving an alternate reason for reduction in no of accidents.
(D) The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years. This MAY weaken the argument. What if the no.of accidents have increased and because of the increase in emergency facilities, the fatalities have decreased?
(E) In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago. Hold

Between B and E, E seems to strengthen the argument by saying it MAY be because of the driver's efforts, the number of accidents are reducing. I'll go with E.

Cheers!

yash312 · Answer

E: This is the option which states that Skilled drivers are the reason for the decrease in fatalities.

thereby it sort of strengthen the arguement
IMO E

nmccull · Answer

E strengthens the argument by providing a reason why drivers are more skillful now than 5 years ago.

Posted from my mobile device

Hardik0007 · Answer

A,B,C,D gives the counter argument by justifying the cause that lead to drivers being more aged and skillful, hence tries to weaken the statement.

Where as 'E' Strengthens the argument by proving the reason why Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago.

PRIYANSHU1111 · Answer

GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two E is the obvious answer but how is D weakening the argument?

rs47 · Answer

Increasing the number of emergency facilities would help deal with emergency cases, in turn potentially bringing down the number of fatalities.

Hope this helps..

vittoriofurbini · Answer

yeah, on my side the problem was that D seems to attack the evidence in the argument, (that the number of fatalities is really declined).

Pranavsawant · Answer

I chose E but I was held between B and E for a while. "  Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project." Did they finish it? If not, then it does NOT weaken the argument. Similarly with E, that weakens only if the program was somewhat successful. What if the people taking that program did not have any increase in their skills? @GMATNinja

agrasan · Answer

Hi  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

(C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.

I understand why (E) is the best answer. If we didn't have (E), then could we say that (C) is the best among  rest four ?
My reasoning behind (C) is we don't know whether driving less would lead to decrease in traffic fatalities, it just decreases the chances of accidents but we can't say for fatalities.
Please help me on this.

MartyMurray · Answer

Since a reduction in the amount of driving done  could  result in a reduction in the number of crashes that occur annually and thus in the number of driving-related fatalities, (C) weakens the case for the conclusion by providing a  possible  alternative cause for the decline in the annual number of fatalities.

It's true that it's not 100 percent certain that the decline in the number of fatalities resulted from the reduction the amount of driving done each year. At the same time, a statement doesn't have to prove a conclusion incorrect to weaken an argument. It has only to cast doubt on the conclusion, and (C) does so.

MartyMurray · Answer

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined. This leads to the conclusion that, overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago.

Conclusion of the argument:

overall, the driving-age population of Australia consists of more skillful drivers now than five years ago

The support for the conclusion:

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large over the last five years, but the annual number of traffic fatalities has declined.

The reasoning of the argument is basically the following: There are more people who could drive if they so desire, and at the same time, the annual number of fatalities has declined. So, it must be the case that, overall, drivers are more skillful than they were in the past.

One aspect of the argument that we may notice is that it jumps from evidence about the number of fatalities to a conclusion about drivers' skillfulness. That jump is not unreasonable, and at the same time, it's clear that the evidence and conclusion are not directly connected.

Each of the statements below, if true, weakens the argument EXCEPT:

This is a Weaken EXCEPT question, so the correct answer will be the one that does not weaken the argument.

(A) Three years ago, a mandatory seat-belt law went into effect throughout Australia.

This choice weakens the case for the conclusion by presenting a possible alternative reason for the decline in the number of fatalities.

After all, if this choice is true, then it could be that an increase in seatbelt wearing rather than an increase in driver skillfulness is the cause of the decline in the number of fatalities.

Eliminate.

(B) Five years ago, Australia began a major road repair project.

This choice weakens the case for the conclusion by presenting a possible alternative reason for the decline in the number of fatalities.

After all, if this choice is true, then it could be that improvements in road conditions rather than an increase in driver skillfulness are the cause of the decline in the number of fatalities.

Eliminate.

(C) Because of increases in the price of fuel, Australians on average drive less each year than in the preceding year.

This choice weakens the case for the conclusion by presenting a possible alternative reason for the decline in the number of fatalities.

After all, if this choice is true, then it could be that a reduction in the amount of driving done per year rather than an increase in driver skillfulness is the cause of the decline in the number of fatalities.

Eliminate.

(D) The number of hospital emergency facilities in Australia has doubled in the last five years.

This choice weakens the case for the conclusion by presenting a possible alternative reason for the decline in the number of fatalities.

After all, if this choice is true, then it could be that greater availability of emergency facilities rather than an increase in driver skillfulness is the cause of the decline in the number of fatalities.

Eliminate.

(E) In response to an increase in traffic fatalities, Australia instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago.

This choice is tricky because it could seem to weaken the case for the conclusion by presenting a possible alternative reason for the decline in the annual number of fatalities.

At the same time, considering this choice carefully, we see the following.

Australia's having instituted a program of mandatory driver education five years ago could have resulted in a decrease in the number of fatalities by causing drivers to become more skillful.

So, rather than weaken the case for the conclusion, this choice strengthens the argument by indicating that drivers in Australia did indeed become more skillful through going through the driver education program.

Thus, this choice helps to confirm that an increase in driver skillfulness occurred and is the cause of the decline in the number of fatalities.

So, since the correct answer to this question is the one that does not weaken the argument, this choice is our answer.

Correct answer:   E

KarishmaB · Answer

No. CR has only one correct answer. Not multiple possible answers varying in degree.
So if you remove the correct option, none of the other can be correct. Option (C) does weaken the conclusion as do the other 3 options. None of these 3 options prove beyond doubt that they are the reason for reduction in fatalities either. Each of the 4 raise a doubt.

GMATNinja · Answer

You don't need  proof  to strengthen or weaken an argument. You just need  evidence .

Your job is to think about how each choice "moves the needle": is it neutral (no effect on the argument), positive (evidence supporting the argument), or negative (evidence against the argument)? In other words, instead of asking, "Does this prove or disprove the argument?", you want to ask, "How does this affect the  strength  of the argument?".

Does choice (B) prove anything? No, but it is certainly strong evidence that something besides skill was a factor. If we had additional evidence suggesting that NONE of the repairs were completed in five years and/or that road safety was not at all improved by the repairs during that time, then (B) likely wouldn't be a weakener.

But we don't have such evidence. Instead, we just have new information that could absolutely explain the data and thus undermine the argument. That's enough to weaken the argument, even though (B) certainly does not disprove the argument.

Same goes for (E). Without knowing anything else, we'd expect a program of mandatory driver education to improve skill and competence.

Is it  possible  that the program didn't help at all? Sure, but there's no evidence for that. On its own, (E) is evidence -- not proof -- that the argument is correct.

vineet6316 · Answer

There is no such thing as 'the best among the rest choices' on the GMAT. There is always and always  ONLY one correct  answer choice and  rest four are absolutely wrong.

Choice C  provides an alternative explanation for the decrease in traffic fatalities. If people are driving less, they are spending less time on the road and are therefore less likely to be involved in an accident. This alternative explanation   weakens   the original argument, which is based on a supposed increase in driver skill.

mkeshri185 · Answer

I have doubt with D. It says number of hospital fatalities has increased. This clearly has no link with traffic fatalities nor about vehicle or driving anyway. So it is neutral and it must be the answer.

Option E on the other hand says there was a driver educator program held. But we dont know whether they learnt or not or whether that program was related to driving skills. It might be about something else topic.D on the other hand is clearly neutral bcz it has no link with the saying in the passage so it can't weaken it.

GMATNinja · Answer

Imagine that you could go back in time to January 1 of any past year in Australia, wave a magic wand, and double the number of hospital emergency facilities in the country. Everything else in this parallel Australian universe is exactly the same (including number of drivers, amazingness of Aussie accents, driver age/skill, number and severity of car accidents, etc.). The ONLY difference is the number of hospital emergency facilities. With all else equal, do you expect the number of traffic fatalities to go up, go down, or stay the same? Obviously we can't know for sure what would happen. But if the only change is to DOUBLE the number of hospital emergency facilities, then we would expect the number of traffic fatalities to go down. (D) doesn't prove anything, but it is evidence that the data can be explained, at least partially, by the change in the number of hospital emergency facilities, not necessarily by a change in driver skill. For more on that, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-australia ... l#p2498005. Similarly, (E) is evidence that driver skill has improved, and that would strengthen the argument. For more on (E), check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-australia ... l#p3638388.

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large ov

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In Australia, the population that is of driving age has grown large ov

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards