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.
_________________

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.
_________________

In Wareland last year, 16 percent of licensed drivers under 21 and 11 percent of drivers ages 21-24 were in serious accidents. By contrast, only 3 percent of licensed drivers 65 and older were involved in serious accidents. These figures clearly show that the greater experience and developed habits of caution possessed by drivers in the 65-and-older group make them far safer behind the wheel than the younger drivers are.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?


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


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

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

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

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

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

Kudos please if you find this helpful

(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
_________________

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.
_________________

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. This question deals with the probability a bit. As we the more work you do the chances of error are higher than if you do less work. Thinking on the same line fewer miles drove means less probability of accidents. Thus A is the answer. A good question though.

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 .

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..

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.

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.

I hope this helps!
_________________

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

Responding to a PM:


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.

I hope that helps!
_________________

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.
_________________

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.
_________________

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.

Thanks Nightmare007 for the explanation!

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."
_________________

Conclusion: Older drivers are safer than younger drivers.
Premise: A smaller percentage of older drivers are involved in serious accidents.

Because this is an assumption question, we know that the correct answer, when negated, will undermine the conclusion.

(A)- Negated: Drivers 65 and older DO, on average, drive very many fewer miles per year than drivers 24 and younger.

Well, if the older drivers are driving many fewer miles than the younger drivers are covering, then it's not necessarily the case that older drivers are avoiding accidents because they're driving more safely. Rather, they're avoiding accidents because they're just driving less. Because A, when negated, undermines the conclusion, we know we're looking at the correct answer.

(B)- Negated - Drivers 65 and older constitute a significantly larger percentage of licensed drivers in Wareland than drivers ages 18-24 do. ---- First of how much significant is really going to matter, moreover what if 3% of that exceeds the number of young drivers who met serious accidents

Between A and B, A seems a better choice. Rest choices can be eliminated very easily.
_________________