In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11

This is an exposure type of question: the lower accident rate may be due to lower exposure rather than higher quality of the subject. Answer choice A illustrates this perfectly.

Your interpretation is correct. If the older group for example drove the same amount as the younger group, then the conclusion that the older group are safer drivers is supported.

In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 percent of drivers ages 21-24 were in serious accidents. By contrast, only 3 percent of licensed drivers 65 and older were involved in serious accidents. These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.

(C) Drivers 65 and older are less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents.

(D) The difference between the accident rate of drivers under 21 and of those ages 21-24 is attributable to the greater driving experience of those in the older group.

(E) There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.

main point by negation:
high experience and habit of caution will not make >65 older people safer then younger people
given that a) 3% injured in >65 group which is the lowest in the statistics of licensed drivers

pre-think
1. old people dont drive their own cars, rather young drivers do it for them
2. old people dont drive frequntly as young people do
3. old people drive less distance than young peope do

look at the options:
(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
it matches the pre-think above.

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.
this is what mentioned in the passage. hence its just para-phase. hence incorrect

(C) Drivers 65 and older are less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents.
if old guy more likely to drive in bad weather, then chance of accidents will go high not low. hence it is just the opposite.

(D) The difference between the accident rate of drivers under 21 and of those ages 21-24 is attributable to the greater driving experience of those in the older group.
this is some stupid logic. 16%-11% = 5% attributed to exp of old guy ??. incorrect

(E) There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
it says there is no age group which has lower than 3% accident rate. even if there is an age group with lower than
3%, it can be >75,>85, <50,<30. not a concrete statement. hence incorrect

Does the following change in emphasis change your interpretation?

"...drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are."

It should. I haven't changed any of the words here, but note that the conclusion is written in order to compare two groups. More specifically, the author is using "the ______________" to refer back to the two explicit age groups that were introduced at the start of the passage.

If the author intended to make an absolute comparison between drivers older than 65 and all drivers younger than 65, we would see language that explicitly draws this kind of comparison. But we don't see such language, and we know that the author has already set us up for a comparison of two specifically defined groups -- and we won't want to drift away from that comparison when interpreting the conclusion.

I hope this helps!

Even if we take it to be "younger drivers in general" i.e. drivers less than 65 years of age, option E still doesn't break down the argument since the age bracket for which the accident rate is lower could be of people, let's say, aged 80 and over. So, there exist situations in which the argument holds even in the face of negation of the option.

- CJ

Good question! I was actually thinking of writing about this aspect while posting. However, I decided that I'd write about this if you asked a doubt. And here I am

You are right: 65 years and older includes 80 years and older. However, just because I have created an age bracket 65 and older doesn't mean that I cannot create an age bracket 80 years and older. Rather, it's pretty common to talk in terms of overlapping sets in many contexts. For example: the average property prices in the US are lower than the average property prices in New York. The comparison makes sense even though New York is a part of the US. Similarly, the accident rate for the age group 65 years and older may be higher than that for the age group 80 years and older.

Pre-Thinking what author is saying:
1.) presents some figures.
2.) Conclusion: greater experience and developed habits are the reason, why the 65+ year olds have such a low accident rate.

What did the author assume to draw that conclusion?
That 65+ year olds have " greater experience and developed habits" in the first place. Only then would that conclusion make sense.


(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
Expl: Wordy, but hits the point. The author assumes that 65+ year olds have greater experience, therefore the assumption that 65+ year olds drive at least as much as 24-and-younger-ones do, is pretty much what we want.
There still could be a better answer choice which says that 65+ year olds definitely have better experience or smth.....so keep looking. But hold A) for now.
Good choice so far!

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.
Expl: Quick look back at the figures tells us, that the figures are already in percent. So if 65+ year olds would make up a larger percentage, still only 3 percent would be involved in accidents.
Assumptions on percentages would have absolutely no effect because of that. Also, the author is saying nothing that would be attributable to a lesser/larger percentage of licensed drivers of a group.
Incorrect.

(C) Drivers 65 and older are less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents.
Expl: One may could be tempted by this answer. Because we are looking for an assumption that states that 65+ year olds have more experience.
But this answer choice here goes one step further and says that 65+ year olds definitely drive less on bad weather conditions. We cannot necessarily say that. we have to be strict.
Incorrect.

(D) The difference between the accident rate of drivers under 21 and of those ages 21-24 is attributable to the greater driving experience of those in the older group.
Expl: Another more tempting answer choice. in a general term it says, the author assumes that difference in accident rate between age groups is attributable to greater driving experience.
Which sounds to be in the line of reasoning of the author. But look closely, thats all there is to it.
First, why is it so specific about the younger two groups? Could be better if it talks about two groups involving those 65+ year olds, since we are talking about them.
Secondly, and more importantly, this just restates the conclusion. Not what the author assumes. It just restates the conclusion that difference in accident rates is because of the better driving experience. GMAT never asks in Assumption-Questions for answer choices that just restate what the author is saying. Thats not an unstated assumption. those restatements can not be correct in assumption questions!!!
Incorrect.

(E) There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
Expl: Does the author assume that in order to draw his conclusion? Does the author assume that the accident rate is lowest for 65+ year olds in order to draw the conclusion that they have such low accident rates because of their better experience? Think about it..... No!
Incorrect.

Only A) is left, make your move then.

Remember, the conclusion of this argument is, "These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than younger drivers are."

This post explains why it's so important to take this conclusion exactly as it's written.

Additionally, the question asks which choice is an assumption on which the argument depends. So in our process of elimination, we need to determine whether each answer choice is an assumption that MUST be true for this specific conclusion to be valid.

In the same post I linked to above, I've explained here why choice (E) is NOT a required assumption (the accident rate of licensed drivers 65 and older has no impact on the argument the author is making).

If (A) were not one of the choices, we would still eliminate (E), because on its own merits, this choice is not required for the conclusion to be valid.

I hope this helps!

Option (C) doesn't add a whole lot to the argument. It only gives an example of a developed habit of caution. Whether an option can be a strengthener depends on how it is worded and what the other options are in an actual question. all we can say for sure is that option (C) is not the assumption in this question.

When I read your query , I thought for a moment that option new C looks great but to differentiate between A and C , I looked in the argument. The argument says " involved in SERIOUS ACCIDENTS". bad weather conditions may lead to ACCIDENTS but not necessarily SERIOUS ACCIDENTS. So A gives direct reasoning that old drivers are not driving less as compared to young ones .

I hope it helps

In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 percent of drivers ages 21-24 were in serious accidents. By contrast, only 3 percent of licensed drivers 65 and older were involved in serious accidents. These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are.


Let us do negation on Statements and check condition of conclusion.

Conclusion : it is the experience of >65 year age bracket which makes them safe in comparison with 21 age bracket drivers.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.- drivers 65 and older do drive very few miles per year than younger driver. This brings out another reason for conclusion except experience. Argument become Invalid. --- Correct Answer

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.- Drivers 65 and older do constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers.It doesn't hurt the conclusion.

(C) Drivers 65 and older are less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents. After negation the statement will become "Drivers 65 and older... not less likely... to drive in weather condition". Means drivers 65 and older are equal to or more likely than younger driver to drive in weather condition. So what ? Does it make conclusion fall apart ? No.

(D) The difference between the accident rate of drivers under 21 and of those ages 21-24 is attributable to the greater driving experience of those in the older group. it's comparing between 21 and 21-44 group . where as conclusion talkes about >65 and (21+ 21-44 age bracket).

(E) There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older. conclusion talks about comparison of >65YO driver with 2 age group only. so it's OFS

nikitamaheshwari, Safety is being measured in terms of percentage here and not absolute numbers (which makes sense). In your own scenario, there is a 3% chance that the older driver would be involved in a serious accident and a 10% chance that the young driver would be involved in a serious accident.

Think about this - Let's say that you score a 340/340 on the GRE and a 500/800 on the Gmat. Did you perform better on the GMAT because 500>300? Obviously not. Hope this helps!

Look at (C) again. (C) is quite different from (A) because (C) does not include "not."

As a result (C) is a weakener. After all, rather state the assumption that there is NOT an alternative cause of the lower accident rates, (C) PRESENTS an alternative cause, which is basically that older drivers don't drive in bad weather. By presenting an alternative cause, (C) weakens the case for believing that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older are the causes.

These two, which are based on what you mentioned, are also weakeners.

1.) the older drivers are more often retired, their schedules less often lead them to drive at times of day when accident rates are greater for everyone
2.) the older drivers are more likely to live in rural areas with less traffic and lower accident rates

A necessary assumption is (C) or one of those two + NOT.

So, your analysis is spot on, you just missed that all of them, including (C) would be assumptions with the addition of NOT. So, because they don't include NOT, none of them are assumptions that the argument relies on.


Well, the mileage does not have to be similar, but the miles driven by the older drivers can't be very many fewer. After all, if the miles driver by older drivers are very many fewer, then that lower mileage could be the cause of the lower accident rates.


The sample sizes do not have to be similar. Of course, a sample size of 2 would be too small to effectively support an argument about accident rates, but the argument would work just fine if the sample sizes were, for example, 1000, 10,000, and 20,000. After all, the argument is about accident rates. The sample size would not affect the accident rate as long as the sample size is not simply too small to support any argument about accident rates.

Thank you so much. I wish the OG mentioned "NOT" in their explanation.

Hi GmatNinja,

I was just curious, if the question had been a weakener with the following answer choices, which would have been the correct choice?

A) (A) Drivers 65 and older do, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.

C) Drivers 65 and older are less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents

I think the oa is weakening the argument whereas we need to find the assumption please explain thanks in advance

Choice (A) does not weaken the OA. If choice (A) were NOT true (i.e. "Drivers 65 and older DO, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger."), then that would indeed weaken the argument. Thus, we need to assume that choice (A) is true in order for the argument to hold.