Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 1810:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us in a live GMAT practice session and solve 25 challenging GMAT questions with other test takers in timed conditions, covering GMAT Quant, Data Sufficiency, Data Insights, Reading Comprehension, and Critical Reasoning questions.
May 1212:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Make the most of your break with the most realistic GMAT™ prep. Take up to $700 off select products. Ends 6/1
May 1501:00 PM IST
-11:00 AM IST
Start your journey with a fully customized action plan and work with a dedicated mentor to achieve a 735+ score.- May 19
12:00 PM PDT
-01:00 PM PDT
Scoring 329 on the GRE is not always about using more books, more courses, or a longer study plan. In this episode of GRE Success Talks, Ashutosh shares his GRE preparation strategy, study plan, and test-day experience, explaining how he kept his prep.... - Jun 10
06:00 AM PDT
-06:15 PM PDT
Register for the GMAT Club Virtual MBA Spotlight Fair – the world’s premier event for serious MBA candidates. This is your chance to hear directly from Admissions Directors at nearly every Top 30 MBA program..
04 Feb 2026, 05:08
Kudos
Bookmarks
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
40% (02:34) correct
60%
(02:24)
wrong
based on 77
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
It has been proposed by the National Traffic Safety Administration (NTSA) that drivers on highways be connected by means of in-vehicle devices, many of which may be suitable for performance by the driver while driving if performed via an auditory-vocal interface. This would ensure that they get timely help in case of an emergency. According to the National Traffic Safety Administration, with an in-vehicle device a driver in distress, may easily be able to communicate his situation, without having his hands off the wheel and their eyes off the road. However, the Automobile Safety Association (ASA) has opposed the move, stating that the adoption of voice-based systems in the vehicle adversely compromises traffic safety.
Which of the following, if true, logically validates the contention of the ASA?
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
(Source=TCYOnline)
Which of the following, if true, logically validates the contention of the ASA?
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
(Source=TCYOnline)
04 Feb 2026, 05:55
Kudos
Bookmarks
It has been proposed by the National Traffic Safety Administration (NTSA) that drivers on highways be connected by means of in-vehicle devices, many of which may be suitable for performance by the driver while driving if performed via an auditory-vocal interface. This would ensure that they get timely help in case of an emergency. According to the National Traffic Safety Administration, with an in-vehicle device a driver in distress may easily be able to communicate his situation, without having his hands off the wheel and their eyes off the road. However, the Automobile Safety Association (ASA) has opposed the move, stating that the adoption of voice-based systems in the vehicle adversely compromises traffic safety.
Which of the following, if true, logically validates the contention of the ASA?
NTSA says voice based in vehicle devices help drivers in emergencies without taking hands off the wheel or eyes off the road. ASA says voice based systems still reduce traffic safety.
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
This is suggestive, but it is not airtight. Mobile use can involve extra risks that are not purely voice based (like handling the phone), so this does not cleanly prove the in vehicle voice system itself is unsafe.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
This goes the other way. It suggests conversation can improve safety, so it does not validate ASA.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
This is speculative behavior, not a direct safety mechanism. It also does not show that the voice system itself causes unsafe driving.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
This directly supports ASA. Even if hands and eyes stay on task, cognitive load from a voice interaction during distress can slow reactions and reduce scanning, which is exactly how traffic safety can be compromised.
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
This is correlation and also too broad. It does not isolate voice based in vehicle systems, and “talking while driving” can cover many situations.
Answer: (D)
Which of the following, if true, logically validates the contention of the ASA?
NTSA says voice based in vehicle devices help drivers in emergencies without taking hands off the wheel or eyes off the road. ASA says voice based systems still reduce traffic safety.
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
This is suggestive, but it is not airtight. Mobile use can involve extra risks that are not purely voice based (like handling the phone), so this does not cleanly prove the in vehicle voice system itself is unsafe.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
This goes the other way. It suggests conversation can improve safety, so it does not validate ASA.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
This is speculative behavior, not a direct safety mechanism. It also does not show that the voice system itself causes unsafe driving.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
This directly supports ASA. Even if hands and eyes stay on task, cognitive load from a voice interaction during distress can slow reactions and reduce scanning, which is exactly how traffic safety can be compromised.
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
This is correlation and also too broad. It does not isolate voice based in vehicle systems, and “talking while driving” can cover many situations.
Answer: (D)
10 May 2026, 03:22
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let's think about the passage first, it's written very weirdly but what it is trying to say is this:
There is a proposed voice connection technology that will connect drivers on highways and ensure the safety of people in bad situations by allowing them to speak to other drivers. NTSA supports, and ASA opposes the implementation of such a technology. Simple.
Now, the ASA says that the technology is bad for overall traffic safety. We need to strengthen that claim.
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
Sure, they may have compiled the evidence of accidents caused by mobile phone usage. But we don't know about the strengths or weaknesses of said evidence. Just because they HAVE evidence doesn't necessarily strengthen their claim that the technology will reduce traffic safety. REJECT.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
That is a weakener; it tells me why it's a good idea to go for such tech. REJECT.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
Seemingly good option, but it is very broad. Do we NEED to pull off the road every single time there is an issue? The answer choice even says 'when possible', so if it is possible to stay on the road, then why is that a bad thing? I cannot assume that staying on the road will always end in disaster. REJECT.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
This one is interesting, it basically says that in a bad situation, reaction times slow and drivers miss obvious visual cues - that is a bad thing. Now if you add a call to the mix, which will further increase how much attention the drivers are losing - hence the traffic may get more cooked than before. (This is the best explanation I could come up with, and to be fairly honest, this requires an assumption that audio calls will remove attention from the road)
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
Okay, but we are not saying that the technology will be in effect before the accident/disaster has taken place - it will be used after the problem happens.
Plus, it talks about 'AMONG THE ACCIDENTS DUE TO DRIVER NEGLIGENCE', it gives us data on the subset of a subset. Not very useful. REJECT.
There is a proposed voice connection technology that will connect drivers on highways and ensure the safety of people in bad situations by allowing them to speak to other drivers. NTSA supports, and ASA opposes the implementation of such a technology. Simple.
Now, the ASA says that the technology is bad for overall traffic safety. We need to strengthen that claim.
A. The ASA has compiled evidence of accidents that have taken place when drivers engaged in similar conversations using mobiles.
Sure, they may have compiled the evidence of accidents caused by mobile phone usage. But we don't know about the strengths or weaknesses of said evidence. Just because they HAVE evidence doesn't necessarily strengthen their claim that the technology will reduce traffic safety. REJECT.
B. A conversation is helpful to keep long-distance drivers to remain awake and avoid weariness and sleep, thus avoiding accidents.
That is a weakener; it tells me why it's a good idea to go for such tech. REJECT.
C. The ASA estimates that drivers will become more liberal in driving discipline as they would, when possible, avoid pulling off the road when using the in-vehicle device.
Seemingly good option, but it is very broad. Do we NEED to pull off the road every single time there is an issue? The answer choice even says 'when possible', so if it is possible to stay on the road, then why is that a bad thing? I cannot assume that staying on the road will always end in disaster. REJECT.
D. As mental engagement increases in distress, reaction time slows, and drivers scan the road less and miss even visual cues right in front of them.
This one is interesting, it basically says that in a bad situation, reaction times slow and drivers miss obvious visual cues - that is a bad thing. Now if you add a call to the mix, which will further increase how much attention the drivers are losing - hence the traffic may get more cooked than before. (This is the best explanation I could come up with, and to be fairly honest, this requires an assumption that audio calls will remove attention from the road)
E. According to the ASA, of all road accidents due to driver negligence, a major percentage involved deliberate acts of commission by drivers such as talking while driving.
Okay, but we are not saying that the technology will be in effect before the accident/disaster has taken place - it will be used after the problem happens.
Plus, it talks about 'AMONG THE ACCIDENTS DUE TO DRIVER NEGLIGENCE', it gives us data on the subset of a subset. Not very useful. REJECT.
