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

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.

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?


For Assumption problems, I first ID the Conclusion from the Passage (highlighted above), then NEGATE each A/C to see which one BREAKS the Argument's Conclusion


(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
- Correct. Drivers 65+ are not SAFER behind the wheel...they just drive a LOT less, so the probability of them getting into accidents is far less.

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.
- Opposite. When negated, this strengthens the conclusion.

(C) Drivers 65 and older are no less likely than are drivers 24 and younger to drive during weather conditions that greatly increase the risk of accidents.
- Incorrect. Drivers 65+ could be AS likely as drivers 24 and younger.

(D) The difference between the accident rate of drivers under 21 and of those ages 21-24 is not attributable to the greater driving experience of those in the older group.
- Incorrect. What about the "developed habits" mentioned in the passage? also, "the difference" is ambiguous -- MAIN difference? ONLY difference? Are there other differences that should be inferred here?

(E) There is no an age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
- Incorrect. Does not address whether the licensed drivers 65+ years old have more/better driving experience AND better developed habits.

Kudos please if you find this helpful

Solution
passage analysis                                                  
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 percent of drivers ages 21–24 were in serious accidents.

The author gives us information about two groups of licensed drivers who were involved in serious accidents last year in Wareland.
16% of the licensed drivers under 21
11% of the licensed drivers between 21-24

 By contrast, only 3 percent of licensed drivers 65 and older were involved in serious accidents.

On the other hand, only 3% of licensed drivers who were 65 or more than 65 years old 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.

Conclusion: Drivers in the 65-and-older group are safer drivers than younger drivers (licensed drivers between under 21 and 24) because of their greater experience and developed habits of caution

pre-thinking                                                                 
Falsification question

In what scenario will drivers in the 65-and-older group not be safer drivers than younger drivers?
Given that

Of the two groups of licensed drivers who were involved in serious accidents   last   year in Wareland- group 1 included 16% of the licensed drivers under 21, 11% of the licensed drivers between 21-24
group 2 comprised 3% of licensed drivers who were 65 or more than 65 years old
65-and-older group had greater experience and developed habits of caution

Thought Process

The author here comes to the conclusion that because 65-and older drivers have greater experience and exhibit developed habits of caution, they are safer drivers, The younger drivers are apt to be more involved in serious accidents precisely because they lack experience and are therefore less cautious drivers.

Falsification condition

What if there were other parameters that were applicable in case of younger drivers and not in case of older drivers when considering who is the safer driver?

We have taken into account greater experience and developed habits of caution on the part of the 65-and-older drivers.

Let us take the case of younger drivers. Let us say they are more socially active, or are currently studying or working and have to drive more than the older group who do not drive as much due to a variety of reasons like failing eye-sight, ill-health, not working anymore, etc. This then could explain why they are involved in fewer serious accidents than the younger drivers and this could break down my conclusion.

Assumption

The 65-and-older drivers drive almost as often as or almost as much as the younger drivers do.

Answer Choice Analysis

A
This option means that 65-and-older drivers, on average, drive as many miles per year as the younger drivers (24 and younger)

This is in line with our pre-thinking (The 65-and-older drivers drive almost as often as or almost as much as the younger drivers do). The “almost as much as “phrase matches with “not very many fewer miles per year”. This option makes way for equal ‘opportunities’ for the two groups to be involved in serious accidents where, because of greater experience and caution the older group turn out to be safer.

Hence, this is the correct answer.

B
This option gives us the percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland. It says the 65-and-older do not make up a very larger percentage of licensed drivers as compared to the percentage of younger drivers (ages 18-24)

Does this option have to be true for my conclusion to be true? No.

Scenario 1-Let us say that of 100 licensed drivers, half are 65 ≥ and half 18-24
Then as per the passage 3% of half the licensed drivers will be much lower than 27% of the other half.

Scenario 2- let us say that of 100 licensed drivers, 55 are 65 ≥ and 45 are 18-24
Then as per the passage 3% of 55 the licensed drivers will be again much lower than 27% of the remaining 45.

So, this option actually weakens my argument

Hence, it cannot be the answer.

C
This option says that the 65-and-older are less likely to drive during bad weather when the risk of accidents is higher than the younger drivers.

Can we definitely say that serious accidents take place more during bad weather? It is possible that the 65-and-older group drive more in bad weather and are yet less involved in serious accidents. Similarly, the younger drivers might be involved in serious accidents even when driving in normal weather conditions. So, this option need not be true for my conclusion to be true.

Hence, this is not the answer.

D
This option tells us that the drivers under 21 have a higher accident rate than the 21-24 age group of drivers because of the latter’s greater driving experience.

We are concerned with the comparison being made between the 65-and-older group and 18-24 age group. So, this option is irrelevant to our discussion.

Hence, it is not the answer.

E
This option says that there is no age group of drivers with lower accident rates than the 65-and-older drivers.

Once again, we are concerned with the comparison being made between the 65-and-older group and 18-24 age group. So, this option is irrelevant to our discussion

Hence, not the answer.

If B option stated that Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger population of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do, then that can be assumption too right?

Because if we negate it, then it means Drivers 65 and older constitutes a larger population. Let take an example

If 65 and older have population -3000 and 3% = 90 are involved in serious accidents.
and if the population of the other two age group is very small say 100, then 11% and 16% will be 11 and 16 people are involved in serious accidents.
So, in such a case we cannot conclude that 65 and older are safer.

Can you correct my understanding here??
GMATIntensive VeritasKarishma, GMATNinja
Thanks

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!

Thanks for the explanation. How do you understand that percentage here will be more relevant than the number? Can't we say that since more people have been injured in age group 60-65 and hence it is not safe? While I do understand the GMAT example but I am not able to relate it this with the question.

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.

GMATNinja egmat - how do I go about rejecting choice C? How I read is that this choice explains how because of greater experience the older drivers have fewer accidents since they do not venture out in conditions that will not lead to accidents.
this I think reinforces the conclusion. Please tell me where I am going wrong?

- Fatima

(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.

(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.

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?

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