Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them

LUTs are bought for their rugged appearance.
LUTs are are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards

Conclusion: If involved in a serious high-impact accident, a driver of one of these trucks is more likely to be injured than is a driver of a car that is subject to these government standards

Conclusion says that in case of an accident, a driver of an LUT is more likely to be injured than driver of a car.
It is assuming that the LUT does not meet the standard.
The conclusion is saying that out of 100 accidents of LUTs, 20 people will be injured.
But out of 100 accidents of cars, only 10 people (fewer than 20) will be injured.
The conclusion is not saying that fewer cars will be involved in accidents. It is saying that probability of the driver getting hurt in case the car is involved in the accident is lower. The discussion is on what happens when an LUT vs car gets involved in an accident. It is not on how many LUTs vs cars will get involved in accidents.

(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks

The arguments tells us that LUTs are exempt from car safety standards. It doesn't tell us whether there are any LUT standards. If anything, it assumes that there are NO LUT standards.

(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly

No. As discussed, the argument is all about what happens to people when they get in an accident. It is not about how likely they are to get into an accident.

(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries

As discussed, the argument is all about what happens to people when they get in an accident. It is not about how likely they are to get into an accident. This is irrelevant.

(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful

How do powerful engines lead to safety, we don't know. Irrelevant.

(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards

Correct. It says LUTs are less likely to meet car safety standards because these standards are not forced on them. The argument does assume that just because the standards are not enforced, LUTs will not meet them and hence will be lacking in safety (lower safety than car). That is why drivers in LUTs are more likely to get injured when in an accident.

Answer (E)

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. In fact, the implication of the argument is that the government has not established safety standards for light utility trucks. Or at least it has not established standards as strict as those for cars.

(B) No. The conclusion of the argument does not state that people who buy light utility trucks for their appearance are more likely to be in serious accidents—just that they are more likely to be injured when in a serious accident.

(C) No. An explicit premise of the argument is “if involved in a serious high-impact accident.” The argument then concludes “a driver of one of these trucks is more likely to be injured than is a driver of a car that is subject to these government standards.” So the argument does not need to assume that light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries.

(D) No. Nothing is stated or implied about the truck engines. However, there is an implication that the truck bodies are not sufficiently strong.

(E) Yes. The argument implies that because these trucks are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards people driving them are more likely to be injured in an accident. However, it is conceivable that the government believes it is unnecessary to set standards because all the light utility trucks that have been produced have far exceeded car-safety standards. Hence, for the argument to be valid one must assume that cars are more likely to meet these standards than are light utility trucks.
_________________

Answer E

(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks - Irrelevant
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly - Irrelevant
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries - Likelihood of getting into an accident is not required. Hence, it is out of scope
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful - Irrelevant
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards - If we negate this option we get "Light utility vehicals are more likely to meet the car-safety standards" hence, in this case the conclusion falls apart

Has to be E.

If the author doesn't assume that, then the light trucks may meet the gov standards in which case the argument's conclusion won't stand.

I think the answer is E
The whole point of the argument that the people driving light trucks will more susceptible to injury than the people who drive cars because the light trucks are not subjected to crash test .
Now the assumption would connect the conclusion as the author has taken a big leap to form the conclusion .
E is the only assumption required by the argument if the light trucks fail car safety standards than they will cause more serious injury to passenger than a light truck which passes safety standards.

Has to be E why?

Because we are doing an apples to orange comparison

Try to negate this option -

(E) light utility trucks are likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards

This breaks down the arguement and contradicts the conclusion, hence Answer here must be (E)
_________________

Can anyone please throw some light on C.
Negation---- less likely... is my negation correct ?
_________________

Hi everyone,

The argument conclusions is about two specific entities: cars and light trucks.

We also know that light trucks are exempt from meeting the cars' safety standards but we don't know whether both of the entities meet them or not or to which extent.

Option c talks about a general scenario while the conclusion is the result of a specific cause. For example the light trucks could be involved in more accidents than any other vehicles because their brakes are somehow faulty.

In addition the conclusion is about serious accidents. Let's consider the following scenario: light trucks are involved in the highest number of accidents resulting in injuries (as option c tells) but the category of accidents is "Not serious accidents". On the other hand light trucks are involved in no serious accident. As we can see option C does not affect the argument

Option E on the other hand validates the cause-effect relation that helps to draw the conclusion

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________