Last visit was: 01 May 2026, 07:11

It is currently 01 May 2026, 07:11

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Back to Forum

Create Topic

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

1 2 3 4

Dinesh654

Joined: 08 Jun 2021

Last visit: 11 Aug 2024

Posts: 151

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 217

Status:In learning mode...

Location: India

GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27 Verified score

Products:

GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27 Verified score

Posts: 151

Kudos: 9

22 Mar 2022, 05:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

I am still not convinced with E
what if there is an age group of 30-35 yrs and they have smaller accident rate. than it is going to fall apart. E sounds like a must be condition. Nowhere in the conclusion its written that 65+ are safer and more experienced than 24 and younger ones. It just says 65+ are safer than younger ones that means all of the age groups younger than 65.
for that E is a must be.

Can someone explain this in detail?
GMATNinja egmat

MartyTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 24 Nov 2014

Last visit: 11 Aug 2023

Posts: 3,471

Own Kudos:

5,646

[3]

Given Kudos: 1,430

Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Affiliations: Target Test Prep

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 3,471

Kudos: 5,646

[3]

22 Mar 2022, 05:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

dcoolguy

(E) does appear to be a necessary assumption. However, notice what the conclusion of the 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 THE younger drivers are.

So, the argument is not about differences between drivers 65 and older and ALL younger drivers. It's about differences between drivers 65 and older and THE younger drivers, meaning "drivers under 21" and "drivers ages 21-24."

Every word matters in CR ...

Dinesh654

Joined: 08 Jun 2021

Last visit: 11 Aug 2024

Posts: 151

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 217

Status:In learning mode...

Location: India

GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27 Verified score

Products:

GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27 Verified score

Posts: 151

Kudos: 9

10 May 2022, 08:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

adityapareshshah

avi1787

Someone please explain how B is incorrect.

Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.
Yes, if we negate this, and take this scenario.

total licensed drivers-1000
65 and older- 700
under 24- 100
others-200

3% of 700, is ~20
10% of 100 is ~10

So there are more number of older drivers who are involved in serious accidents which breaks the argument that they are safer than younger ones. Although the question mentions %, why cant we use numbers? We follow this strategy for many % related CR problems.

Where am i missing?

I too had a similar line of thought and hence marked answer as B.

Experts please comment with your views.

Even if "there are more older drivers who are involved in serious accidents", that would not necessarily break the argument. If a smaller percentage of older drivers is involved in serious accidents, this can still be used as evidence to argue that older drivers are safer behind the wheel.

For example, if 10% of the residents of the United States of America like to drink tea, that would be about 30 million people. If 50% of the residents of Great Britain like to drink tea, that would also be about 30 million people. Even though the absolute numbers are about the same, we can still conclude that, on average, the residents of Great Britain prefer tea more than residents of the USA.

And thank you for all of the great replies on this, everybody! As always, feel free to use the "Request Expert Reply" button to post specific questions not already addressed in this thread.

I got this question correct, but there is one thing I would like to ask,
All of the choices were good and required certain amount of time to process.
If someone is answering it for the first time, it takes time to answer with complete resoning and 100% confidence.
It took me 6 minutes to answer with 70-80 % confidence.

How to approach this kind in actual exam?

To all experts, please share your thoughts MartyTargetTestPrep AndrewN GMATNinja AjiteshArun

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Last visit: 29 Mar 2025

Posts: 3,490

Own Kudos:

7,671

[4]

Given Kudos: 500

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 3,490

Kudos: 7,671

[4]

10 May 2022, 09:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

dcoolguy

Hello, dcoolguy. There are a few ways to improve your timing. First, if all of the choices were good to you here, then you have to study how to pick apart options to spot flaws. Answer choice (D), for instance, shifts away from the argument concerning drivers in the 65-and-older group and replaces this target group with drivers ages 18-24 as representative of the older group in a completely different comparison. Certainly, this cannot be a required assumption, and the option should prove an easy (maybe 20-second) elimination. Look for the most obvious flaws in your initial pass of the answer choices. If you cannot make heads or tails of something, just mark it as a maybe and move on. The longer you sit there and mull over an answer choice, especially if you have not looked at the others, the greater the likelihood that you will grow nervous and more time-conscious, factors that will not help you arrive at an accurate conclusion. On this point of advice, I myself may sometimes come across a puzzling answer choice, and I treat it as though the text has a big black box over it. Suddenly, the answer pool has narrowed to four options. Based on experience, I know it is highly unlikely that two answer choices in the same set will confound me, so I work with those other four. I see what I can chisel away, starting with more glaring issues, then working with what is left. At some point, I may have narrowed my options to one that I can "see" and the other, the black-box answer. If I cannot disprove the visible answer, I select it and move on; if I can, I go for the black box and move on. What is crucial is that I keep moving.

No one answers every Verbal question with 100 percent confidence—the test is designed to exploit weaknesses at many levels and in many forms—and anyone who claims otherwise is probably trying to sell you something. All you can do is give yourself the highest probability you can that what you think is correct in a given question ends up being correct. You improve your accuracy by fine-tuning your approach to any type of question the test can throw at you. Practice may not make perfect, but practice will make you better, provided you take the time to adequately study the questions you come across.

Thank you for thinking to ask. It is an honor to have been mentioned alongside other GMAT Club legends.

- Andrew

MartyTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 24 Nov 2014

Last visit: 11 Aug 2023

Posts: 3,471

Own Kudos:

5,646

[3]

Given Kudos: 1,430

Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Affiliations: Target Test Prep

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 3,471

Kudos: 5,646

[3]

10 May 2022, 14:05

Kudos

Bookmarks

dcoolguy

Hi dcoolguy.

AndrewN has given you some good ideas for how to handle this question when taking the GMAT, even if I think practice can perhaps make you a bit more perfect than what he said implies. So, I'll focus on how to handle this question when practicing, and here's my thought for you.

When practicing, stick with each verbal practice question until you are close to 100 percent sure of your answer. Generally, it doesn't make sense to answer a practice question "with 70-80 % confidence." When you answer a verbal practice question without being virtually certain of your choice, you lose an opportunity to develop strong GMAT verbal skills. You're way better off spending even 10 minutes or more on a question and figuring out how to be close to 100 percent confident of your answer because, what you figure out to do to become close to 100 percent confident of your answer to one question you can then apply to other questions going forward. On the other hand, if you move on from a question before you are close to certain of your choice, then you won't have learned to become certain and you won't be certain of your answers to other questions that you see in the future.

Meanwhile, if you practice by taking the time to become close to 100 percent sure of your answers, you won't have to worry as much about time per question as you may think because, by using the strong skills you develop, you'll be able to answer verbal questions quickly.

For more discussion of how to practice GMAT verbal for maximum results, see this post. Three Key Practice Tips for Mastering GMAT Verbal

woohoo921

Joined: 04 Jun 2020

Last visit: 17 Mar 2023

Posts: 493

Own Kudos:

150

Given Kudos: 623

Posts: 493

Kudos: 150

15 May 2022, 13:01

Kudos

Bookmarks

I realize that this question is discussed at nauseum. However, based on the Official Guide's explanation for this question, I am still confused as to why Choice C is incorrect based on the pre-thinking examples mentioned by the Official Guide.

The Official Guide says, "several factors other than greater experience and caution could explain the lower accident rate among the older drivers...." and provides several reasons below:
1.) "or perhaps 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.) "or they might be more likely to live in rural areas with less traffic and lower accident rates"

The OG then says choice C is incorrect because "even if drivers 65 and older are just as likely as younger drivers to drive in inclement weather, they may do so far more carefully than the younger drivers, so the holder drivers' greater experience and caution could still explain their lower accident rates." I understand how the OG can negate this argument, but the GMAT's other possible reasons mentioned in its "reasoning" section above can also be negated using this same reasoning in that:
1.) even if drivers 65 and older are just as likely as younger drivers to drive at times of day when accident rates are greater for everyone, they may do so far more carefully than the younger drivers, so the holder drivers' greater experience and caution could still explain their lower accident rates
2.) even if drivers 65 and older are just as likely as younger drivers to live in rural areas with less traffic and lower accident rates, they may still drive far more carefully than the younger drivers, so the holder drivers' greater experience and caution could still explain their lower accident rates.

I have seen it mentioned on the GMATCLUB that you shouldn't really rely on the Official Guide's explanation, but they seem to undermine their pre-thinking examples based on how they justify why choice C is incorrect.

Another question: To confirm, Choice A is the best answer because you can only really make this argument more foolproof if you are using similar mileage as a fair comparison.

Would it be the case that similar sample sizes were used in forming these statistics as another assumption that the argument depends upon? For example, it would not necessarily make sense to compare two people in 65+ group to 1,000 people in the 21 & under group to 10,000 people in the 21-24 age group.

Thank you in advance!

MartyTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 24 Nov 2014

Last visit: 11 Aug 2023

Posts: 3,471

Own Kudos:

5,646

[2]

Given Kudos: 1,430

Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Affiliations: Target Test Prep

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 3,471

Kudos: 5,646

[2]

15 May 2022, 13:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

woohoo921

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.

Quote:

Another question: To confirm, Choice A is the best answer because you can only really make this argument more foolproof if you are using similar mileage as a fair comparison.

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.

Quote:

Would it be the case that similar sample sizes were used in forming these statistics as another assumption that the argument depends upon? For example, it would not necessarily make sense to compare two people in 65+ group to 1,000 people in the 21 & under group to 10,000 people in the 21-24 age group.

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.

Elite097

Joined: 20 Apr 2022

Last visit: 04 Feb 2026

Posts: 737

Own Kudos:

568

Given Kudos: 346

Location: India

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

GPA: 3.64

Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27

Posts: 737

Kudos: 568

16 Jan 2023, 09:17

Kudos

Bookmarks

Seen all explanations but not sure of why not E. The passage does not specify that the younger population is the one which is below 24 years old. It could very well include 24-65 year olds as well. The fact that is so, if we have any age bracket in this range who has accident rate of say 1% the argument would break cuz conclusion says 'the more experienced, lower the accidents' but here if we are to compare the aforementioned age bracket to 65+ year olds then our conclusion fails as the lower age bracket has basically just 1% accident rate, which is lower than that of 65+ year olds avigutman KarishmaB GMATNinja MartyTargetTestPrep

MartyTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 24 Nov 2014

Last visit: 11 Aug 2023

Posts: 3,471

Own Kudos:

5,646

[1]

Given Kudos: 1,430

Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect

Affiliations: Target Test Prep

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 3,471

Kudos: 5,646

[1]

16 Jan 2023, 10:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

Elite097

Seen all explanations but not sure of why not E. The passage does not specify that the younger population is the one which is below 24 years old. It could very well include 24-65 year olds as well.

The last line of the passage mentions "the younger drivers."

Since it says "THE younger drivers" rather than simply "younger drivers," we can understand it to be referring specifically to the younger drivers mentioned earlier in the passage.

So, "the younger drivers" would not include younger drivers other than the ones mentioned.

imanmohammadi

Joined: 01 Apr 2023

Last visit: 04 Mar 2024

Posts: 4

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 7

GMAT 1: 500 Q48 V13 Verified score

GMAT 2: 460 Q44 V12 Verified score

Posts: 4

Kudos: 1

13 Nov 2023, 07:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

Quote:

The conclusion is not simply that drivers in the 65-and-older group ARE safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are; rather, the conclusion is "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". Also, notice that the author uses the word "safer" not "better". Although you might think safer is better, this is not stated in the passage!

As for choice (E), the argument is only concerned with comparing drivers in the 65-and-older group to drivers ages 21-24, and the author does NOT say that the 65-and-older group is necessarily the SAFEST group. For example, drivers ages 60-65 might have a lower accident rate than drivers in the 65-and-older group, but this would not impact the author's argument.

Would you please explain why it cannot be the case?

The conclusion is: 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.

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

Hypothetical age brackets:

less than 21:16%
21-24: 11%
25-35: 1%
35-64: 69%
65 and older 3%

In age bracket 25-35, which ,as concerned in the conclusion, is younger than +65, but the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
This type of age bracketing would undermine the conclusion, since 25-35 is younger than 65, but while they have less experience and developed habits of caution, they are safer.
On the other hand 35-64, with 69% accident rate, despite the fact that has the greater experience and developed habits of caution than the younger drivers have, is not safer than younger (>21, 21-24)

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,465

[2]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,465

[2]

13 Nov 2023, 23:07

Kudos

Bookmarks

imanmohammadi

Quote:

less than 21:16%
21-24: 11%
25-35: 1%
35-64: 69%
65 and older 3%

In age bracket 25-35, which ,as concerned in the conclusion, is younger than +65, but the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
This type of age bracketing would undermine the conclusion, since 25-35 is younger than 65, but while they have less experience and developed habits of caution, they are safer.
On the other hand 35-64, with 69% accident rate, despite the fact that has the greater experience and developed habits of caution than the younger drivers have, is not safer than younger (>21, 21-24)

The argument is comparing 'upto 24' with 'more than 65' and no one else. The conclusion says that 'more than 65' drivers are safer because of their experience than THE YOUNGER DRIVERS (upto 24 drivers). It is not comparing 'more than 65' with all younger drivers, only THE younger drivers it mentions (upto 24 ones).

Yaswanth_Raman

Joined: 26 Jan 2024

Last visit: 07 Mar 2024

Posts: 1

Given Kudos: 2

Posts: 1

Kudos: 0

06 Mar 2024, 08:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

If we negate the option E from the question given.
(E) There is no an age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.

This negated assumption implies that there will be an age group, for example 40-45 has less serious accident rates then 65 and older. And the above implication will put the conclusion at risk which states that "the greater experience possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers".

One can argue that The conclusion is comparing drivers 65 and older to younger drivers, specifically those under 24. But no where, in the conlclusion I can see explicit mention of it and even conclusion called out that "65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers". So, does 25-64 are not considered younger than 65?

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 29 Apr 2026

Posts: 16,448

Own Kudos:

79,465

[3]

Given Kudos: 485

Location: Pune, India

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,448

Kudos: 79,465

[3]

06 Mar 2024, 22:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

Yaswanth_Raman

Note that the meaning of words depends on the context. Here, the comparison is ONLY between two groups - 'upto 24' and 'more than 65'.

Conclusion: 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.

So when I say "this leads to the conclusion that the 'more than 65' group drivers are safer than THE younger drivers," I am talking specifically about the younger drivers I have mentioned before (the upto 24 ones).
Without the use of "THE" in the conclusion you might have been able to make a case for all drivers younger than 65, but not here.

Yes, you do need to focus on every word of the argument and understand what it means in context.

Sujithz001

Joined: 09 Jun 2024

Last visit: 06 Feb 2026

Posts: 101

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 75

Posts: 101

Kudos: 46

13 Dec 2024, 21:39

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja KarishmaB chetan2u bb

I have a doubt regarding Option A,

What is the relation between fewer miles & accidents? Even if the average number miles driven is way lesser than youth's, can there be not many accidents relative to youths?

Can anyone please help me resolve this doubt?

Thank you thank you so much!

BillyZ

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.

Show Spoiler

Wareland Accidents

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Accident Rates

<21 – 16%

21-24 – 11%

≥65 – 3%

© Exper + caution ≥65 -> safer drivers

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On an Assumption question, you are looking for a piece of information that is necessary to draw the conclusion. In this case, the argument states that the lower accident rate for drivers 65 and older is caused because they are safer drivers. What else might cause a lower accident rate?

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) CORRECT. If the cause of the lower accident rate among drivers 65 and over is their safe driving due to experience and caution, it is important to rule out alternative explanations for the lower accident rate. Mileage driven is one such alternate explanation; between two equally safe drivers, the one who drives fewer miles is less likely to get in an accident. This answer rules out the possibility that the lower accident rate for older drives is just due to driving fewer miles.

(B) The argument presents data about the percentage of drivers by age group who are involved in accidents. Thus, the number of drivers in each age group does not matter to these comparisons or the related conclusions.

(C) This information provides an alternate explanation for the lower accident rate, weakening the conclusion. Drivers 65 and over may have a lower accident rate because they drive in better conditions, not because they're safer drivers.

(D) This information supports some of the logic in the conclusion – that experience results in safer driving. But it is not necessary that the cause of the reduction in accident frequency for drivers 21 to 24 be the same as the cause of the reduction in accident frequency for those 65 and older. For example, suppose that 21 to 24 year olds have fewer accidents than those under 21 because they tend to drive cars with better brakes and other technology that may prevent accidents. Even in this case, those 65 and older could still be safer drivers due to their caution and experience.

(E) The conclusion is comparing drivers 65 and older to younger drivers, specifically those under 24. This conclusion and argument could still be valid even if there were some other age group (for example those 40 to 45) that has an even lower accident frequency.

chetan2u

GMAT Expert

Joined: 02 Aug 2009

Last visit: 01 May 2026

Posts: 11,235

Own Kudos:

45,060

[3]

Given Kudos: 335

Status:Math and DI Expert

Location: India

Concentration: Human Resources, General Management

GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 735 Q90 V89 DI81 Verified score

Posts: 11,235

Kudos: 45,060

[3]

14 Dec 2024, 20:22

Kudos

Bookmarks

Sujithz001

I have a doubt regarding Option A,

What is the relation between fewer miles & accidents? Even if the average number miles driven is way lesser than youth's, can there be not many accidents relative to youths?

Can anyone please help me resolve this doubt?

Hi

Say X has scored 200 goals and Y has scored 20 goals. From this, can we say that X is a better player.

What if X has played 200 matches for the 200 goals he scored while Y scored the 20 goals in just the 4 matches he has played now?
Surely the equation changes now..

Same logic is being applied in the question here..
An accident could happen only when someone drives on the road. If 65+ aged drivers hardly move out on the road, the likelihood of theirs getting involved in accident goes down. So, 65+ drivers may not be safer behind wheels but may be present for very few times in situations that could lead to accidents.

Of course you still cannot be 100% sure about who drives more safely. But you do have another data that could be the reason for lesser accidents.

harjas2222

Joined: 09 Dec 2023

Last visit: 01 May 2026

Posts: 50

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 69

WE:Analyst (Consulting)

Products:

Posts: 50

Kudos: 21

24 Jun 2025, 05:25

Kudos

Bookmarks

but A is weakener so why correct?

Bunuel

Math Expert

Joined: 02 Sep 2009

Last visit: 01 May 2026

Posts: 109,993

Own Kudos:

812,270

Given Kudos: 105,972

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 109,993

Kudos: 812,270

24 Jun 2025, 05:58

Kudos

Bookmarks

harjas2222

but A is weakener so why correct?

The question is discussed in detail on the previous three pages. Please review them, your doubt is addressed there.

NEYR0N

Joined: 12 Feb 2025

Last visit: 27 Jan 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 66

Posts: 92

Kudos: 14

06 Aug 2025, 10:53

Kudos

Bookmarks

Even if there is, the argument is about the "interplay" between 65 year olds and youth

guialain

I was stuck between E and A.
Went for E because if there is a bracket age for which the accident rate is lower than that of 65 and older, the the conclusion is challenged.

Don't know why E is not right.

NEYR0N

Joined: 12 Feb 2025

Last visit: 27 Jan 2026

Posts: 92

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 66

Posts: 92

Kudos: 14

07 Aug 2025, 07:50

Kudos

Bookmarks

I am requesting an experts advice for choice B, because the explanations written differ. Some say its irrelevant, others use numbers to prove a bi-directional outcome. and also, no expert has answered the following:

We have premises that solely talk about percentages. but, a leap is taken and the conclusion mentions this causal claim: experience + caution of 65y group causes them to be safer drivers than youngsters.

Is choice B incorrect because it is trying to raise doubt about whether the 3% figure is misleading due to group size. Which basically means it's arguing with a premise ?

Thanks,

DmitryFarberMPrep

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 22 Mar 2011

Last visit: 03 Mar 2026

Posts: 3,005

Own Kudos:

8,627

[2]

Given Kudos: 57

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 745 Q86 V90 DI85 Verified score

Posts: 3,005

Kudos: 8,627

[2]

09 Aug 2025, 19:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

It's fair to say that B is irrelevant. That's not inconsistent with using numbers to show different outcomes. The point is that whether B is true or not does not by itself have any bearing on the conclusion. The reason is simple. The argument is all about interpreting proportions, and group size makes no difference to that. For instance, what if we have two stores? At store A, 90% of customers are satisfied. At store B, 40% of customers are satisfied. Clearly, there's a major difference in satisfaction. Why? We don't know. Maybe store A has better service or sells higher-quality merchandise, or maybe customers at store B are just the kind of people who are never satisfied! Would we know anything more about the cause if we found out that one store was larger and had more customers? No--we still wouldn't know why one group was mostly satisfied and the other wasn't. If the argument had been about the NUMBER of dissatisfied customers (or in the original, the number of accidents), then group size might tell us something important about the true proportions. But we already have the proportions, so size doesn't make a difference.

By the same reasoning, there's no way that group size tells us the 3% figure is misleading. Whether there are 100 seniors or 100 million, we know that only 3% of them were in serious accidents. Somehow, they aren't getting in that many accidents per capita. We want to figure out whether that's because they are safer drivers or because of something else. Answer choice A suggests that it's something else--they don't get in accidents much because they don't spend much time on the road.

By the way, part of the confusion here may be about direction. Notice that each statistic we have is a percent of a subgroup. So 16% of drivers under 21 get in serious accidents, vs. 3% of drivers 65 and up. So we know young drivers are in more accidents. If, instead, it said that 16% of serious accidents involved drivers 21 and under, while just 3% involved seniors, then we'd need to know about group size. That's because we'd actually KNOW there were fewer seniors in accidents, but we wouldn't know whether that was a low proportion. If just 3% of accidents were from seniors, but seniors were only, say, 1% of the population, then it would look like they WERE dangerous. So in that case, group size would matter, but B would still be wrong. The assumption would be that seniors are not a SMALLER percentage of drivers than young folks. But in any case, this interpretaion is not what the argument is saying.

INprimesItrust