Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
16 Mar 2025, 14:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks. Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since triple-trailer trucks have have an accident rate lower than that of single- and double-trailer trucks, Partoria can reduce the overall rate of crashes by requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks instead of single- or double-trailer trucks.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the accident rate of triple-trailer trucks is lower, requiring shippers to use them instead of smaller trucks may not result in a reduction in the rate of highway crashes.
(A) No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.
This choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion.
After all, keeping smaller roads off limits to large trucks won't prevent a switch in truck types from resulting in a reduction in highway accident rates.
Eliminate.
(B) So far, only the best, most experienced drivers for Partorian trucking companies have been driving triple-trailer trucks.
This choice is interesting.
After all, if only the best, most experienced drivers have been driving triple-trailer trucks, then there may not be anything inherently safer about triple-trailer trucks. It could be that all that's going on is that triple-trailer trucks have a lower accident rate than other trucks because only the safest drivers drive triple-trailer trucks, so far.
In that case, requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more may not help at all. After all, in that case, if required to use more triple-trailer trucks, shippers would be stuck having the less safe drivers who are currently driving only smaller trucks start driving triple-trailer trucks, in which case, the crash rate for triple-trailer trucks would likely increase, becoming more similar to what it has been for smaller trucks.
Of course, in that case, highway crash rates could remain the same, or even increase if the less safe drivers get into even more crashes because they are driving bigger trucks.
So, this choice severely weakens the case for the conclusion.
Keep.
(C) Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.
This choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion.
After all, even if few fatal collisions are between two trucks, it remains the case that trucks are disproportionately involved in crashes, and that triple-trailer trucks have a lower accident rate than smaller trucks.
So, even if this choice is true, it still makes sense to conclude that requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more could result in a reduction in crash rates.
Eliminate.
(D) In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
Regardless of whether this choice is true, it remains the case that smaller trucks are involved in crashes more than triple-trailer trucks.
So, even if this choice is true, it still makes sense to conclude that requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more could result in a reduction in crash rates.
Eliminate.
(E) In Partoria, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer trucks.
This choice is tricky to eliminate because it indicates that there may be a flaw in the plan. After all, if this choice is true, then replacing single-trailer trucks with triple-trailer trucks may not be ideal since shippers may end up having to use more trailers to ship the same amount of cargo.
At the same time, what we have to notice to eliminate this choice is the following. Even if shippers may have to use more trailers to transport the same amount of cargo, the plan could still work.
After all, regardless of whether shippers may have to use more trailers, there would still be fewer single-trailer trucks on highways, and thus, the rate of highway crashes should decrease.
So, we could say that this choice weakens the case for the wrong conclusion. It weakens the case for the conclusion that there are no possible issues with the plan, but it doesn't weaken the case for the conclusion that replacing smaller trucks with triple-trailer trucks will result in a reduction in the rate of highway crashes.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
The conclusion of the argument is the following:
Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.
The support for the conclusion is the following:
The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks.
We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since triple-trailer trucks have have an accident rate lower than that of single- and double-trailer trucks, Partoria can reduce the overall rate of crashes by requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks instead of single- or double-trailer trucks.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
This is a Weaken question, and the correct answer will show that, even though the accident rate of triple-trailer trucks is lower, requiring shippers to use them instead of smaller trucks may not result in a reduction in the rate of highway crashes.
(A) No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.
This choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion.
After all, keeping smaller roads off limits to large trucks won't prevent a switch in truck types from resulting in a reduction in highway accident rates.
Eliminate.
(B) So far, only the best, most experienced drivers for Partorian trucking companies have been driving triple-trailer trucks.
This choice is interesting.
After all, if only the best, most experienced drivers have been driving triple-trailer trucks, then there may not be anything inherently safer about triple-trailer trucks. It could be that all that's going on is that triple-trailer trucks have a lower accident rate than other trucks because only the safest drivers drive triple-trailer trucks, so far.
In that case, requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more may not help at all. After all, in that case, if required to use more triple-trailer trucks, shippers would be stuck having the less safe drivers who are currently driving only smaller trucks start driving triple-trailer trucks, in which case, the crash rate for triple-trailer trucks would likely increase, becoming more similar to what it has been for smaller trucks.
Of course, in that case, highway crash rates could remain the same, or even increase if the less safe drivers get into even more crashes because they are driving bigger trucks.
So, this choice severely weakens the case for the conclusion.
Keep.
(C) Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.
This choice has no effect on the support for the conclusion.
After all, even if few fatal collisions are between two trucks, it remains the case that trucks are disproportionately involved in crashes, and that triple-trailer trucks have a lower accident rate than smaller trucks.
So, even if this choice is true, it still makes sense to conclude that requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more could result in a reduction in crash rates.
Eliminate.
(D) In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
Regardless of whether this choice is true, it remains the case that smaller trucks are involved in crashes more than triple-trailer trucks.
So, even if this choice is true, it still makes sense to conclude that requiring shippers to use triple-trailer trucks more could result in a reduction in crash rates.
Eliminate.
(E) In Partoria, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer trucks.
This choice is tricky to eliminate because it indicates that there may be a flaw in the plan. After all, if this choice is true, then replacing single-trailer trucks with triple-trailer trucks may not be ideal since shippers may end up having to use more trailers to ship the same amount of cargo.
At the same time, what we have to notice to eliminate this choice is the following. Even if shippers may have to use more trailers to transport the same amount of cargo, the plan could still work.
After all, regardless of whether shippers may have to use more trailers, there would still be fewer single-trailer trucks on highways, and thus, the rate of highway crashes should decrease.
So, we could say that this choice weakens the case for the wrong conclusion. It weakens the case for the conclusion that there are no possible issues with the plan, but it doesn't weaken the case for the conclusion that replacing smaller trucks with triple-trailer trucks will result in a reduction in the rate of highway crashes.
Eliminate.
Correct answer: B
16 Mar 2025, 21:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
agrasan
Yeah that makes sense, but consider this: you are wasting precious time by evaluating this option at all.
Does it matter how much payload each carries and how many triple trucks will replace a single truck? NO. Irrelevant to my argument.
If I say bike A is involved in 1/3rd accidents compared with bike B so use bike A more, does it matter how much load each bike can carry? Does it matter whether it is one-on-one comparison or not? It is irrelevant. The idea is to increase the use of bike A instead of B (whenever possible) for reduction in accidents.
16 Mar 2025, 21:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Thanks KarishmaB for your response.
I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my reasoning on option D for the learning purpose but now I also understand your perspective to reject this option quickly.
I just wanted to make sure I was correct in my reasoning on option D for the learning purpose but now I also understand your perspective to reject this option quickly.
KarishmaB
