Last visit was: 08 Aug 2026, 14:54 It is currently 08 Aug 2026, 14:54
Home
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   4 
655-705 (Hard)|   Assumption|                           
User avatar
Tejasethb
User avatar
Joined: 07 Oct 2020
Last visit: 13 Apr 2026
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
6
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 21
Kudos: 6
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 10 Aug 2025, 05:31
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
- Once read the argument- Pre-Think

Negate the conclusion- In what situation
1. The data that 65 and older group are safe drivers will hold false.
Despite the fact that the data suggest says that 65+ involved in less accidents.

When you question the data itself-
Assumption when data is representation is fair.

2. There is some other factor rather than greater experience and developed habits of caution that lead to the increase in accidents.
- There is no other factor like the age group less than 60 use to drive in challenging areas as compared to the age group of 60+

(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 not at all an assumption?
Why?
- The drivers 65 and older if constitute significant larger number this will strengthen the argument rather than weakening it

(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 comparison provided in the conclusion is 65 below or 65+ and not other way round!
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.
This is not at all an assumption?
Why?
- The drivers 65 and older if constitute significant larger number this will strengthen the argument rather than weakening it

(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.
The reverse would be an assumption this is weakening the argument- Why? If they are less likely then there is no parity!
In accordance with my pre-thinking!



(E) There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.
This does not establish the connection between experience and this is comparision between 25 or lower and 65+ the rate can be higher let say in 50-55 still the experience points holds true [NO is extreme word here!]

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.
­
Show more
User avatar
rkrai11
User avatar
Joined: 28 Aug 2014
Last visit: 27 Jan 2026
Posts: 2
Products:
My Reviews
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 05 Jan 2026, 18:25
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Once again, we are concerned with the comparison being made between the 65-and-older group and 18-24 age group- But why? Younger should mean any age group less than 65, and not only below 24.

E seems more suitable answer!

egmat


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.
Show more
User avatar
miag
User avatar
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Dec 2023
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 400
Own Kudos:
166
Given Kudos: 737
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Sustainability
Schools: Anderson '26 (A) Haas '26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80
GPA: 3.2/4
Products:
My Reviews
Expert
Expert reply
Schools: Anderson '26 (A) Haas '26 (A) Kellogg '26 (A)
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q87 V83 DI80
Posts: 400
Kudos: 166
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 07 Jan 2026, 01:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi,
Let me try to help you with this one:
Choice A is required because if older drivers drive far fewer miles, the lower accident rate could be due to less exposure, not experience or caution - directly undermining the causal claim.

Hope this helps!
rkrai11
Once again, we are concerned with the comparison being made between the 65-and-older group and 18-24 age group- But why? Younger should mean any age group less than 65, and not only below 24.

E seems more suitable answer!


Show more
User avatar
GMATQuizMaster
User avatar
Joined: 17 Jun 2025
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 62
Own Kudos:
28
Given Kudos: 4
Status:Prep Company
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 62
Kudos: 28
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 12 Feb 2026, 04:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
1. Conclusion: The conclusion has three aspects:
i. It compares two specific age groups: ≤24 vs ≥65 -(note the word "the" in "the younger drivers").
ii. It states older drivers possess two characteristics (experience + caution).
iii. It claims these characteristics MAKE them far safer drivers compared to the younger ones.

2. Negated conclusion:
"Even with experience and caution, drivers 65+ are NOT far safer behind the wheel than younger drivers."

3. The logical gap:
Lower accident percentage (3% vs 16%) only proves older drivers are safer IF both groups are exposed to similar conditions. The passage/ conclusion does not talk about these other conditions.

Choice A (Correct): Eliminates the exposure gap by stating older drivers don't drive significantly fewer miles per year. This means that older drivers are not exposed to significantly less risk. Hence, this choice eliminates a condition in which the conclusion can break.

Common traps -

Choice C: Says older drivers are less likely to drive in risky weather. In a way it indicates that older drivers are not safer drivers, they just avoid risky situations. If equally exposed to risky situations as the younger drivers, they may not be safer

Choice E: The conclusion only compares two specific age groups (≤24 vs ≥65). Whether some other age group (say, 25-30) has a 2% accident rate doesn't affect whether 65+ drivers are safer than ≤24 drivers. The conclusion isn't claiming 65+ is the safest group overall - just safer than the younger drivers mentioned in the passage.

Full detailed video solution with complete BRIDGE methodology analysis:

User avatar
Keerthi2511
User avatar
Joined: 12 Aug 2025
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 16
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 30 Jul 2026, 23:08
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Dear Experts
If option B was something that conveyed the licensed drivers >65 year are not significantly more than the younger group.
Can this option be the answer!
My thought process is as : let???s say there are around 3000 >65 year licenses drivers, 3% of this would be 90, and youngr generation are around 100 people ??? around 27 people involved in accidents. So can we arrive at a conclusion that they are not safe drivers compared to younger generation?
avatar
dhairya18
avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2025
Last visit: 08 Aug 2026
Posts: 74
Own Kudos:
4
Given Kudos: 109
Location: India
Schools: ISB '27 HEC Sept '27
GPA: 7.34
Products:
Forum Quiz
Schools: ISB '27 HEC Sept '27
Posts: 74
Kudos: 4
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 31 Jul 2026, 01:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
CONCLUSION: Seniors' greater experience and developed habits of caution make them far safer behind the wheel than younger drivers.

​LINE OF REASONING:
​Premise: 3% of drivers 65+ had serious accidents, compared to 16% of under-21 drivers and 11% of 21–24 drivers.
​Conclusion: Seniors are safer drivers due to skill and caution.

​STRUCTURAL FLAW / REASONING GAP: Exposure Flaw (Per-Driver vs. Per-Mile). The statistic measures accidents per licensed driver rather than accidents per mile driven. The author assumes the lower accident rate isn't simply due to seniors spending significantly less time on the road.

​PURE DEDUCTIVE PRE-PHASE:
The author must assume that senior drivers do not have drastically lower mileage/exposure on the road compared to younger drivers.

​OPTION ANALYSIS:
​(A) Correct. This directly matches our deductive pre-phase regarding mileage exposure. It confirms that the lower accident rate is not a side effect of seniors driving significantly fewer miles. (Negation: If seniors DO drive significantly fewer miles, their lower accident rate is caused by lack of road exposure rather than skill/caution, shattering the conclusion).
​(B) Incorrect. Population sizing trap. The premises are given in percentages of each group, so the relative total population sizes do not change the mathematical ratios.
​(C) Incorrect. Alternative explanation trap. If seniors avoid bad weather, it provides a different reason for their lower accident numbers, which works against attributing the safety record purely to skill and caution.
​(D) Incorrect. Irrelevant sub-group comparison. The difference between drivers under 21 and drivers 21–24 does not impact the comparison between seniors and youth overall.
​(E) Incorrect. Out of scope / Extreme. Seniors do not need to be safer than every other age group (e.g., middle-aged drivers) to prove they are safer than young drivers.
User avatar
egmat
User avatar
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Last visit: 07 Aug 2026
Posts: 6,134
Own Kudos:
33,787
Given Kudos: 714
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 6,134
Kudos: 33,787
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 31 Jul 2026, 02:52
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Keerthi2511,

Your arithmetic is actually fine, but look closely at what your own numbers are saying, because they quietly prove the opposite of your conclusion.

In your scenario:
- 65+ group: 90 accidents out of 3000 drivers - 3 out of every 100 older drivers crashed.
- Younger group: 27 accidents out of 100 drivers - 27 out of every 100 younger drivers crashed.

So yes, the older group has a bigger raw number of accidents (90 vs 27) - but that's only because it has 30 times as many people. Pick one random older driver and one random younger driver, and the younger one is nine times more likely to be in a serious accident. That's exactly what "safer behind the wheel" means.

The gap to fix: you're comparing total accident counts between two groups of very different sizes. Safety isn't about how many crashes a group racks up in total - it's about the chance per driver, and the passage already hands us that as a percentage (3% vs 16%/11%). Group size can't change those percentages, which is why a version of B about how many 65+ drivers there are is simply irrelevant to the conclusion.

A quick stand-in to lock it in:

Town A: 10 out of 1,000 people are left-handed - 1%.
Town B: 5 out of 10 people are left-handed - 50%.

Town A has more lefties in raw count (10 vs 5). Is a random person in Town A more likely to be left-handed? Obviously not.

Same move here: a bigger group can post a bigger accident count while each of its members is far safer. Once the data is already in rates, the number of drivers in each group tells you nothing - so B can't be the assumption, and A (which protects the rate from the miles-driven objection) is what the argument really needs.

Answer: A

Keerthi2511
Dear Experts
If option B was something that conveyed the licensed drivers >65 year are not significantly more than the younger group.
Can this option be the answer!
My thought process is as : let???s say there are around 3000 >65 year licenses drivers, 3% of this would be 90, and youngr generation are around 100 people ??? around 27 people involved in accidents. So can we arrive at a conclusion that they are not safe drivers compared to younger generation?
Show more
   1   2   3   4 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7399 posts
AbhishekP220108
Verbal Forum Moderator
703 posts