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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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.

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)

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".

­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?