Last visit was: 31 Aug 2024, 19:42 It is currently 31 Aug 2024, 19:42
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
Unanswered
Active Topics
New posts
New comers' posts
Close
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
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

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

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2   3   4 
Tags:
Difficulty: 655-705 Level,   Assumption,                        
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3479
Own Kudos [?]: 5254 [3]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   10 May 2022, 14:05
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
dcoolguy wrote:
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

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
User avatar
S
woohoo921
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Posts: 534
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [0]
Given Kudos: 623
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   15 May 2022, 13:01
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!
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3479
Own Kudos [?]: 5254 [1]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   15 May 2022, 13:39
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
woohoo921 wrote:
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.

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.
User avatar
S
woohoo921
Director
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Posts: 534
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [1]
Given Kudos: 623
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   15 May 2022, 14:32
1
Kudos
MartyTargetTestPrep wrote:
woohoo921 wrote:
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.

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.


Thank you so much. I wish the OG mentioned "NOT" in their explanation.
User avatar
D
Elite097
Director
Director
Joined: 20 Apr 2022
Posts: 609
Own Kudos [?]: 353 [0]
Given Kudos: 338
Location: India
Schools: Sloan '25 Columbia '27 Haas '27
GPA: 3.64
Send PM
CAT Tests
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   16 Jan 2023, 09:17
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
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3479
Own Kudos [?]: 5254 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   16 Jan 2023, 10:35
Expert Reply
Elite097 wrote:
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.
avatar
S
jim441
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Apr 2022
Posts: 200
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 277
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Marketing
GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35 (Online)
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   17 Jan 2023, 03:59
The conclusion of the argument 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."

We have been only given the data of 65 years or older and younger than 24, data of 24 to 65 is missing. Also younger drivers could include drivers between 25 to 64. Option E patches the gap as it states that the accident rate of other age group (lets say between 30 to 40) is not less than that of drivers over 65 as negation of this would kill our conclusion.

Please share your insight

Please share your insight on this
User avatar
L
MartyTargetTestPrep
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Posts: 3479
Own Kudos [?]: 5254 [0]
Given Kudos: 1431
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   17 Jan 2023, 06:13
Expert Reply
jim441 wrote:
The conclusion of the argument 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."

We have been only given the data of 65 years or older and younger than 24, data of 24 to 65 is missing. Also younger drivers could include drivers between 25 to 64. Option E patches the gap as it states that the accident rate of other age group (lets say between 30 to 40) is not less than that of drivers over 65 as negation of this would kill our conclusion.

Please share your insight

Please share your insight on this

Check the post two posts above this one. I just answered the same question.
User avatar
B
imanmohammadi
Intern
Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2023
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 1 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
GMAT 1: 500 Q48 V13
GMAT 2: 460 Q44 V12
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   13 Nov 2023, 07:08
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)
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15259
Own Kudos [?]: 67722 [2]
Given Kudos: 438
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   13 Nov 2023, 23:07
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
imanmohammadi wrote:
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)


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).
User avatar
Yaswanth_Raman
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2024
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   06 Mar 2024, 07:50
Why not people considering option E
If we negate option E from the question.
There is an age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
So, it implicates some age group between 24-65 has lesser serious accident rates and This will put the conclusion at risk which states that "greater experience possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers".
User avatar
Yaswanth_Raman
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jan 2024
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   06 Mar 2024, 08:22
­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?

 
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15259
Own Kudos [?]: 67722 [3]
Given Kudos: 438
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   06 Mar 2024, 22:20
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
 
Yaswanth_Raman wrote:
­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?

 


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.  

­­
User avatar
B
agrasan
Intern
Intern
Joined: 18 Jan 2024
Posts: 38
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 1184
Location: India
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   11 May 2024, 08:52
BillyZ wrote:
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.

­
Hi MartyTargetTestPrep ScottTargetTestPrep

Is option B not an assumption because it is kind of explaining the fact/premise given in the argument? As the argument already says "only 3% of licensed drivers 65+ were involved in serious accidents" so option B just explains how it is 3% for 65+ people by adding more information "Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage..."

Can we say the above to eliminate? If not, then how can we eliminate B by logical reasoning or using some figures to arrive at absolute figures?
Thanks in advance.
User avatar
B
akshitab2912
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Jan 2020
Posts: 27
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 183
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   18 Jun 2024, 08:29
AndrewN, pls assist me in understanding why option E is incorrect. If let's say there is a bracket ex. 40-45 years old where rate of accidents is lower than the 65+ age bracket then won't this statement fall flat - "These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers" as these habits and experience are correlated with age? I was confused between Option A and E and chose E. Because if there is such an age bracket then driving experience doesn't make a big difference.
User avatar
B
DNS96
Manager
Manager
Joined: 29 Dec 2023
Posts: 52
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 131
Send PM
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink] In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11   26 Aug 2024, 05:26
broall wrote:
(A) Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
Correct. If drivers 65 and older drive in a shorter distance, then the argument is challenged. The higher rate of serious accidents could be caused by driving in a very long distance

(B) Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do.
The argument focused about the percentage, not the absolute number. Hence this choice is irrelevant to the argument.

(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.
This choice breaks the argument. This choice indicates that the lower rate of drivers 65 and older involved in serious accidents is due to the weather conditions rather than the experience.

(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.
The argument forcused on the different between 2 groups: >= 65 and (<=21 and 21-24)

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

­
Hello broall , if Option B would have been like this (kindly check the bolded-word) --
Quote:
Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger number of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do

Would option B then a contender for the correct answer?
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 [#permalink]
26 Aug 2024, 05:26
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7048 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts