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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Your MBA application resume and essays are of central importance in building your case for admission. In this session, we will discuss a set of tips to help you create a superb MBA application resume and essays.
DCummins interviews and chats with Marty Murray who scored a perfect 800 on the GMAT. Live on YouTube this Saturday at 7 pm ET / 10 am Sunday Australian Eastern Daylight Time
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.
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.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Jun 2017, 15:23
13
11
adityapareshshah wrote:
avi1787 wrote:
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.
_________________
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
04 Oct 2017, 09:58
21
4
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 noan 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.
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 possesses 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. 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 _________________
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
02 Jun 2017, 11:12
5
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.
_________________
What was previously considered impossible is now obvious reality. In the past, people used to open doors with their hands. Today, doors open "by magic" when people approach them
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 27 Sep 2017, 01:00
2
1
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.
The answer is A
A correct if people belonging to both the age group drive same number of mile then the argument is correct as the number of accidents that occurred would give correct picture about the safe driving habits.
B the share of group 65 years or older is not large this means there are fewer drivers with licence and this will result in lower accidents again not emphasis on habits thus leave this option .
C is out of scope it shifts the focus and cause of accidents to weather conditions .
D Again this option does not address the question rather new information may true but it does not tell us about the habits of driving.
E ok this may be true but again it does not tell us about the driving safe habits all it does is says the rate of accidents is lowest for people above 65 years.There can be may causes for that such as fewer number of people or fewer miles driven .
Originally posted by arvind910619 on 03 Jun 2017, 06:41.
Last edited by arvind910619 on 27 Sep 2017, 01:00, edited 1 time in total.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 07 Jun 2017, 21:49
4
adityapareshshah wrote:
avi1787 wrote:
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.
Not a expert ,but still try to resolve this one ...
u already have ur answer but u r not visualizing it correctly..as correctly mentioned in above post, absolute number is out of scope here lets c why:
Stats given by you after negation:
in 700 ---- 20 accident --old aged in 100 --- 10 accident --younger one
Ur claim:"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. "
lets prove mathematically--probability of getting into a accident p(a) - 20/700 = 10/350=1/35 ---- means 1 out of 35 involves in accident-----old aged p(b) - 10/100 = 1 / 10 --- ----------means 1 out of 10 involves in a accident.---younger ones
who is safer ...???????????--OLD Aged definitely.
Here ,Stats provided after negating is helping to build argument--SO this option is incorrect............ Hope it helps..
Originally posted by sobby on 07 Jun 2017, 20:43.
Last edited by sobby on 07 Jun 2017, 21:49, edited 2 times in total.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Jun 2017, 21:32
3
The argument gave us the comparison between 2 groups: 24 and younger & 65 and older, then it jumps to conclusion. Hence the assumption should be something to make this comparison to be true/makes sense, so the conclusion will be hold. The assumption should be relevant to these groups directly/indirectly. In this case the comparison is true/make sense only if both groups had no difference in driving experience last year. Hence the answer is A.
E did not do the job of proving that the comparison in the argument makes sense as it mentions something else other than talking about these two groups. Hence E cant be the answer.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Jun 2017, 23:14
GMATNinja wrote:
adityapareshshah wrote:
avi1787 wrote:
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.
Hi GmatNinja,
I was just curious, if the question had been a weakener with the following answer choices, which would have been the correct choice?
A) (A) Drivers 65 and older do, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
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
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Jun 2017, 17:06
5
1
saicharan1191 wrote:
Hi GmatNinja,
I was just curious, if the question had been a weakener with the following answer choices, which would have been the correct choice?
A) (A) Drivers 65 and older do, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.
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
Choice (C) does not necessarily weaken the author's argument, which is that "the greater experience and developed habits of caution possesses by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are."
Because of their developed habits of caution, drivers 65 and older might avoid driving during dangerous weather conditions, making them less likely to be involved in serious accidents. In other words, even if (C) is true, both groups might drive the same amount on average. But if drivers 65 and over avoid driving when weather conditions are dangerous, that group might be, in general, safer behind the wheel. If that isn't clear, imagine one group that ONLY drives during dangerous storms and another group that ONLY drives when the weather is perfect. Even if all else is equal and both groups have the same level of driving skill, we can still say that members of the second group are safer behind the wheel because of the conditions they choose to drive in.
However, if drivers 65 and older simply drive much less than drivers 24 and younger, this might explain why the older drivers are less likely to be involved in serious accidents. This weakens the author's argument, which is that the figures are evidence that drivers 65 and older are safer drivers than those 24 and younger.
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
After solving the question. I was a bit curious about option E. I felt that what if there exists an age bracket of 35- 65 which has 1% accident rate , while 65 + have 3 %. Won't the conclusion that " These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possesses by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are " Break apart. Since younger drivers are safer behind the wheel than the older drivers. ? and experience is not the issue . ? Just curious though. Can you please let me know how it is irrelevant.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Jun 2017, 11:30
AbdurRakib 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.
The conclusion here is that 65 and older are safer drivers than younger because they have greater experience and cautious habits
A. Drivers 65 and older do not, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger. Correct. This proves that 65 and older do not have an advantage over younger drivers as less driving means less probability of accidents. This also shows that they have more experience of driving as they are driving at least as many miles as younger one but for a longer time B. Drivers 65 and older do not constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18–24 do.Irrelevant information. even licensed drivers can commit more accidents 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.Out of scope. Nothing is mentioned about the weather in the argument 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.this option discusses a different age group E. There is no age bracket for which the accident rate is lower than it is for licensed drivers 65 and older.Out of scope
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.
----------
Easiest Technique is definitely to negate the reasoning author used to arrive at the conclusion. Experience & habits of caution make older people safer behind the wheels than younger one. Lets try to break the reasoning. 1. What if cars used by older and younger people are not alike i.e. Younger people cars are more prone to accidents - lack of ABS system etc. 2. What if they drive less 3. What if younger people in Wareland have habit of driving after drinking. 4. What if there is a system installed in older people car that intimate them about careless driving or over speeding. or Auto Car driving
All these things point to the fact that it is not experience that makes older people safer behind the wheels.
Trap Answers / Wrong answers will be
1. any choice that talks about relative numbers of licensed drivers as explained by GMATNinja in a reply - as in B 2. Choice C is classical trap as it talks about older people Habit of Caution. It more of strengthens the argument. 3. Simply repeating any given information in the argument - Choice D ( it is stated already that Experience is the key to safe driving) 4. Since Choice E is debated alot. lets assume that age group 45-50 have low accident rates than 65 or any othe rage group. It could be for experience (strengthen arguments.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
05 Jul 2017, 20:15
6
1
Responding to a PM:
Quote:
Here is how I paraphrased this argument:
Premise: More experiences leads to better driving Conclusion: People 65 and older are better at driving, and this improvement is due to their increase in experience
I interpreted answer choice (E) as basically saying: there is a case in which more experience did not necessarily lead to better driving, since there would be an age group that had less experience but had lower accident rates.
Can you confirm why my logic is flawed? This question is driving me nuts!
Paraphrasing CR passages can be dangerous. The language choice is so important in these passages, and if you change the word choice when paraphrasing the passage, you might change the entire meaning of the passage! So, when are you trying to understand the structure of a CR argument, use the author's words as much as possible.
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.
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 Jul 2017, 03:20
This is an exposure type of question: the lower accident rate may be due to lower exposure rather than higher quality of the subject. Answer choice A illustrates this perfectly.
_________________
Stuck in the 600's and want to score 700+ on the GMAT? If this describes you, we should talk. I specialize in getting motivated students into the 700's.
$90/hour as of August 2019. I am not accepting any more students for the Fall 2019 application cycle, but if you are planning to apply in 2020, feel free to reach out!
In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
22 Dec 2017, 10:10
rishabhmishra wrote:
I think the oa is weakening the argument whereas we need to find the assumption please explain thanks in advance
Choice (A) does not weaken the OA. If choice (A) were NOT true (i.e. "Drivers 65 and older DO, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger."), then that would indeed weaken the argument. Thus, we need to assume that choice (A) is true in order for the argument to hold.
_________________
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 May 2018, 15:01
1
I still can't shake why (E) is incorrect, as the argument would fall apart if it stands. The argument states that with age and experience drivers become safer drivers, so if another (younger) age bracket would show a far lower rate (let's say age 35-40) wouldn't the argument crumble?
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 May 2018, 17:50
2
svanbergh13 wrote:
I still can't shake why (E) is incorrect, as the argument would fall apart if it stands. The argument states that with age and experience drivers become safer drivers, so if another (younger) age bracket would show a far lower rate (let's say age 35-40) wouldn't the argument crumble?
I might not be an expert, but will try to illustrate how i interpreted the question.
< 21 - 16% 21 - 24 - 11% . . >65 - 3 %
Conclusion: >65 year olds are better in driving than younger people (all <65 are younger people i.e. 97% accidents, so even if few age groups have less than 3% we need to check on an average, the trap is that younger means not the specific people but on a whole average) because of experience.
A says that : These guys DO NOT drive FAR FEW miles than younger people. (if they drive far few miles then this conclusion crumbles saying you can't take an accident rate and judge them, saying that they are making LESS accidents because of experience. If they drive far few miles, It makes them(>65 year old) less prone to accidents.)
E : though at start i opted this option too. what if there exists an age group 35-40 that has less than 3% accidents. So what that 97 % is averaged to 20-65 year old, who have 97% accidents, on average do more accidents right!.
So A is best over E.
Answer should be A.
No wonder this is OG question. OG Never forgets to entice us with each and every question.
Note: Sorry, I just woke up so please be lenient on my English on this post. I tried to correct some grammar errors but am still sleepy.
Re: In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 May 2018, 07:24
Nightmare007 wrote:
svanbergh13 wrote:
I still can't shake why (E) is incorrect, as the argument would fall apart if it stands. The argument states that with age and experience drivers become safer drivers, so if another (younger) age bracket would show a far lower rate (let's say age 35-40) wouldn't the argument crumble?
I might not be an expert, but will try to illustrate how i interpreted the question.
< 21 - 16% 21 - 24 - 11% . . >65 - 3 %
Conclusion: >65 year olds are better in driving than younger people (all <65 are younger people i.e. 97% accidents, so even if few age groups have less than 3% we need to check on an average, the trap is that younger means not the specific people but on a whole average) because of experience.
A says that : These guys DO NOT drive FAR FEW miles than younger people. (if they drive far few miles then this conclusion crumbles saying you can't take an accident rate and judge them, saying that they are making LESS accidents because of experience. If they drive far few miles, It makes them(>65 year old) less prone to accidents.)
E : though at start i opted this option too. what if there exists an age group 35-40 that has less than 3% accidents. So what that 97 % is averaged to 20-65 year old, who have 97% accidents, on average do more accidents right!.
So A is best over E.
Answer should be A.
No wonder this is OG question. OG Never forgets to entice us with each and every question.
Note: Sorry, I just woke up so please be lenient on my English on this post. I tried to correct some grammar errors but am still sleepy.
Yes, as described in this post, "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."
_________________
Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.
close
53% (01:56) correct 
