In comparison to the drivers who live in Mountainview, a greater pro

Hi,
i'll just stick to B and D for explanation--

ARGUMENT-
The para says that due to larger proportion of drivers xg speed limits in OAK, there are more number of accidents there.

lets see which out of B and D weakens the argument..

(B) There is a greater number of drivers in Oak Valley than in Mountainview.
If there are more numbers of drivers, then the higher number of accidents could be because of more drivers rather than their xg speed limit.
May be more accidents but accidents per driver can still be higher at Mountain view due to smaller number of drivers there
so it does weaken the argument


(D) Per capita, there are fewer police officers monitoring traffic in Oak Valley than there are in Mountainview.
firstly police monitoring can be considered out of context ..
But even if it is considered, it can actually strengthen the argument.
It is possible that due to less police trafficking, the drivers speed more resulting in more accidents

ans D

HI Chetan,

In B, just because Oak has greater number of drivers does not automatically mean these drivers are causing the accidents. AFAIK, we cant make such assumptions in GMAT.

Hi,

two reasons Why B should not be the reason..

1) D is a stronger contender and clearly does nothing to weaken the argument.
2) The reasoning that excess number of drivers leading to higher number of accidents is very valid and you will find it in many OG examples..

Actually we are assuming in all the choices--

(A) Oak Valley has a greater proportion of blind intersections and sharp turns than has Mountainview.
You are assuming that the accidents are due to it. May be the drivers are more cautious on these turns etc..

(C) Drivers in Mountainview must travel to Oak Valley to shop and work.
If we think those extra driver in B are not reponsible for accidents, how can we assume that these drivers coming from M'view

(E) The roads are icier for a greater portion of the year in Oak Valley than in Mountainview
Why do we assume here that people do not use ice chains or anti skids during that time OR the ICE is responsible for the accidents..

We can ofcourse connect two items logically, because in weakening/strengthening, we require to assume something..

In D, since there are few police officers in Oak, this can lead to greater no of accidents and not the mentioned cause in the qs stem. Correct? Also, I never said we can't make assumptions-I just said assumption made in B seems to be a little too much

hi KS15,

As we both agree that there are a bit of logical assumption, it is how we use these to analyze the choices..
B and C are following the same logic, so either both are correct or both are wrong or its possible the Q is flawed..

For D, your line of thinking is
In D, since there are few police officers in Oak, this can lead to greater no of accidents and not the mentioned cause in the qs stem...

My Q would be ' How can these lesser number of police monitoring result in more accidents?'
It is due to more people xg speed or driving rashly in absence of police around
So in a way it is strengthening the conclusion..

Had the argument been about deaths in two locations and putting it on accidents due to excess speed ..
This choice would have worked well if it said there are less police..
Since now we could blame normal LAW and order fo rteh excesses death..

I chose D for all the same reasons as stated previously...I tried to not think to deeply into this question. I looked for the answer that does not weaken at all....even if one weakens to a lesser degree than another, is still weakens. When I saw "exceed the speed limit" I thought about breaking the law (word association I guess)...then "D" stuck out because it mentioned that fewer police officers are monitoring traffic in Oak Valley vs Mountainview. When police officers are in full effect and out in numbers, speeding may occur but the driver will more than likely be pulled over, causing other passers-by to slow down as well. I do not think that D weakens at all, hence why I chose that. I was tempted by "B" for sure but just having a greater number of drivers would not necessarily mean that a greater proportion will regularly speed, causing more accidents. The greater number of drivers would weaken because accidents could be caused by traffic congestion rather than excessive speeding, etc.

I do not see this specific type often and it did not appear on my first official GMAT attempt either. But I am going to remind myself that if "all weaken the conclusion EXCEPT" I will remember to find the answer that does not weaken at all...if it one is a less "weakening" choice than another, it still weakens, just to a lesser degree.

Doesn't look like a water tight case .
let me play the devils advocate and show how D could be a weakener and B could NOT be a weakener and be a potential answer


D) Per capita, there are fewer police officers monitoring traffic in Oak Valley than there are in Mountainview: This could also mean that the drivers are not bad but rather the traffic conditions are so bad that in spite of the drivers best efforts , there are more accidents.
Just like icy roads, Blind intersections we could also have bad traffic conditions due to few traffic police as an alternate reason for more accidents. More accidents not necessarily due to Drivers fault.

B)There is a greater number of drivers in Oak Valley than in Mountainview.
If there are more drivers does not mean they are all driving. There could be many drivers who just hold licenses but are not really on the road. Hence this doesn't weaken.
Another point : Just because there are more drivers does that justify the huge number of accidents? Can't all those drivers in Oak valley be exceptionally good drivers ? If this is the case then option B does not provide an alternate reason for the accidents and does NOT weaken the argument.
Further more drivers could mean that more drivers could actually be speeding and speeding could actually be the reason for the huge number of accidents. If this is the case then option B could actually strengthen the argument .
hence option B could be a NON weakener and could in fact strengthen.
hence option B could be the answer too.

Overall this question could have been better.

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

D

Answer D may explain why people are more likely to exceed the speed limit in Oak Valley than in Mountainview, but it has no necessary correlation to the number of accidents in the two towns; therefore, it does nothing to weaken the conclusion that the greater proportion of speeders in Oak Valley results in a greater number of accidents there. Answers A and E provide an alternate explanation: Driving conditions are poor, which certainly could contribute to accidents. Choice B indicates that there is much more traffic in Oak Valley, which could well explain why there are more traffic accidents there. Choice C states that many Mountainview residents travel to Oak Valley regularly; it is possible, then, that they, not the drivers who live in Oak Valley, cause the accidents.

My honest recommendation would be to not change your strategy because of questions like these as they could hurt more rather than strengthen your prep.

• The original conclusion: The higher proportion of speeders in Oak Valley explains why there are more accidents than in Mountainview.
• The question asks for the choice that does NOT weaken this conclusion. In other words, we want the option that either supports the conclusion or is irrelevant, rather than providing an alternative explanation that reduces the emphasis on the proportion of speeders.

Analyze Each Option:

(A) Oak Valley has more blind intersections and sharp turns.
• This suggests an alternative reason for more accidents—dangerous roads, not just speeding. This weakens the conclusion.

(B) There is a greater number of drivers in Oak Valley.
• More drivers can lead to more accidents simply due to a higher volume of traffic, offering another plausible cause unrelated to speeding. This weakens the conclusion.

(C) Drivers in Mountainview must travel to Oak Valley to shop and work.
• This could mean that the increased accidents in Oak Valley might be partly due to additional non-resident drivers on Oak Valley roads, not just local speeding. This weakens the conclusion.

(D) Per capita, there are fewer police officers monitoring traffic in Oak Valley.
• Fewer police officers likely means speeding is not deterred, which actually supports the original explanation—more speeding because less enforcement leads to more accidents. This does not weaken the conclusion; it is consistent with speeding being the cause of more accidents.

(E) The roads are icier for a greater portion of the year in Oak Valley.
• Icy roads are another reason why there could be more accidents, independent of speeding. This weakens the conclusion.

The only option that does not weaken the conclusion is (D).

• The conclusion in the argument is that a higher proportion of speeders in Oak Valley explains the higher number of accidents compared to Mountainview.
• Choice (D) says that per capita, there are fewer police officers monitoring traffic in Oak Valley. This fact would likely reduce the deterrent against speeding and thus support the idea that more drivers in Oak Valley are inclined to exceed the speed limit.
• By implying that there is less enforcement, (D) helps explain why there might be more speeders in Oak Valley. In other words, it aligns with the given cause (higher proportion of speeding drivers) rather than introducing a competing explanation.
• Regarding (B), the assumption is straightforward: more drivers on the roads increase the likelihood of more accidents, regardless of whether they are speeding. This provides an alternative explanation for why Oak Valley might have more accidents and thus weakens the original conclusion that speeding is the key cause.
• The difference is that (D) is not introducing a new, unrelated reason for more accidents—it’s reinforcing the speeding factor by explaining why speeding might be more prevalent. This stands in contrast to options like (B), which bring in a separate factor (overall number of drivers) that can explain the higher accident rate independently of the proportion of speeders.