Forum Home > GMAT > Quantitative > Problem Solving (PS)
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.
Dec 1511:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Dec 1410:00 AM EST
-12:00 PM EST
Think a 100% GMAT Verbal score is out of your reach? Target Test Prep will make you think again! Our course uses techniques such as topical study and spaced repetition to maximize knowledge retention and make studying simple and fun.- Dec 14
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to learn how to Deconstruct arguments, Pre-Think Author’s Assumptions, and apply Negation Test. 
Dec 1608:00 AM PST
-11:59 PM PST
GMAT Club 12 Days of Christmas is a 4th Annual GMAT Club Winter Competition based on solving questions. This is the Winter GMAT competition on GMAT Club with an amazing opportunity to win over $40,000 worth of prizes!- Dec 17
09:00 AM PST
-10:00 AM PST
Join Manhattan Prep instructor Whitney Garner for a fun—and thorough—review of logic-based (non-math) problems, with a particular emphasis on Data Sufficiency and Two-Parts. - Dec 18
10:00 AM PST
-11:00 AM PST
Here is the essential guide to securing scholarships as an MBA student! In this video, we explore the various types of scholarships available, including need-based and merit-based options.
02 Oct 2017, 20:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
78% (01:44) correct
22%
(01:53)
wrong
based on 1032
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks’ rugged appearance. Yet although these trucks are tough-looking, they are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards that dictate minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, 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.
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
16 Oct 2019, 01:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks’ rugged appearance. Yet although these trucks are tough-looking, they are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards that dictate
minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, 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.
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
Source: LSAT
minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, 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.
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
Source: LSAT
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)
13 Apr 2021, 08:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
broall
Light utility trucks have become popular among consumers who buy them primarily for the trucks’ rugged appearance. Yet although these trucks are tough-looking, they are exempt from the government’s car-safety standards that dictate minimum roof strength and minimum resistance to impact. Therefore, 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.
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
The argument depends on the assumption that
(A) the government has established safety standards for the construction of light utility trucks
(B) people who buy automobiles solely for their appearance are more likely than other people to drive recklessly
(C) light utility trucks are more likely than other kinds of vehicles to be involved in accidents that result in injuries
(D) the trucks’ rugged appearance is deceptive in that their engines are not especially powerful
(E) light utility trucks are less likely to meet the car-safety standards than are cars that are subject to the standards
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.
