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 0701:00 AM EDT
-02:00 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and.....
May 0612:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
GMAT 615 to 715 in Just 15 Days! Riya’s 100-pt Improvement Strategy
May 0608:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory....- May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno. 
May 0808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Updated on: 06 May 2026, 07:40
Originally posted by adarsh2000 on 06 May 2026, 05:50.
Last edited by Bunuel on 06 May 2026, 07:40, edited 2 times in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 06 May 2026, 07:40, edited 2 times in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
A
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
38% (03:39) correct
63%
(01:33)
wrong
based on 8
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Reporter: The surface analysis of the location of the accident at the Kallopey Highway showed the presence of smears of Nickel-Iron alloy painting. This alloy does not belong to the car crushed in the accident and is usually used in painting heavy machinery vehicles such as Cranes and Bull Dozers. Data from the highway toll department showed that a group of construction cranes were on the highway around the time the accident occurred. Therefore, one of these cranes was the reason that the car was involved in an accident.
Which of the following would it be most useful to ascertain in order to evaluate the Reporter's argument?
A. Whether paint smears at the location were indicative enough to be the result of a significant collision between the car and the crane.
B. Whether the surface analysis of the location was done exactly at the time of accident.
C. Whether any car manufacturers have recently started considering the usage of Nickel-Iron alloy paint in their upcoming models.
D. Whether there were other heavy machinery vehicles on the highway on that day.
E. Whether the group of construction cranes were on the highway during day time or night time.
Which of the following would it be most useful to ascertain in order to evaluate the Reporter's argument?
A. Whether paint smears at the location were indicative enough to be the result of a significant collision between the car and the crane.
B. Whether the surface analysis of the location was done exactly at the time of accident.
C. Whether any car manufacturers have recently started considering the usage of Nickel-Iron alloy paint in their upcoming models.
D. Whether there were other heavy machinery vehicles on the highway on that day.
E. Whether the group of construction cranes were on the highway during day time or night time.
06 May 2026, 05:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
Why should the answer be A , when the question never implies the car and crane were in a collision. It just says car crushed and crane were on the highway and could be the reason for the accident
06 May 2026, 06:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Analysis of the Argument
To evaluate the argument, we must first identify the core logic:
- Premise 1: Nickel-Iron alloy paint (not from the victim's car) was found at the crash site.
- Premise 2: This paint is typically used on heavy machinery like cranes.
- Premise 3: Cranes were confirmed to be on the highway at the time of the accident.
- Conclusion: One of those cranes caused the accident.
The Flaw/Assumption: The reporter assumes that because cranes were present and the paint matches cranes, the specific cranes on the highway at that time must be the source. This ignores the possibility that the paint was already there from a previous incident or a different source.
Evaluating the Options
- A. (Correct): If the paint smears were old or "weathered," they might have been at the location for weeks, unrelated to this specific accident. If the smears were fresh and "indicative of a significant collision," it strengthens the link between the presence of the cranes and the specific crash. This addresses the "gap" between the paint being there and the paint being caused by this crash.
- B. (Incorrect): While "exactly at the time" sounds precise, surface analysis is almost always done post-accident. As long as it was done before the site was contaminated further, the exact minute doesn't change the logical link.
- C. (Incorrect): The argument mentions the alloy "does not belong to the car crushed." Whether future cars might use it is irrelevant to an accident that has already occurred with a specific, known vehicle.
- D. (Incorrect): This is a common "distractor." While other heavy machinery might use the paint, the argument already places a specific group of cranes at the scene at the right time. Finding out if other machinery was there is less critical than determining if the paint found was actually from a collision that just happened.
- E. (Incorrect): The time of day doesn't impact the presence of the alloy or the physical evidence found at the scene.
To evaluate the argument, we must first identify the core logic:
- Premise 1: Nickel-Iron alloy paint (not from the victim's car) was found at the crash site.
- Premise 2: This paint is typically used on heavy machinery like cranes.
- Premise 3: Cranes were confirmed to be on the highway at the time of the accident.
- Conclusion: One of those cranes caused the accident.
The Flaw/Assumption: The reporter assumes that because cranes were present and the paint matches cranes, the specific cranes on the highway at that time must be the source. This ignores the possibility that the paint was already there from a previous incident or a different source.
Evaluating the Options
- A. (Correct): If the paint smears were old or "weathered," they might have been at the location for weeks, unrelated to this specific accident. If the smears were fresh and "indicative of a significant collision," it strengthens the link between the presence of the cranes and the specific crash. This addresses the "gap" between the paint being there and the paint being caused by this crash.
- B. (Incorrect): While "exactly at the time" sounds precise, surface analysis is almost always done post-accident. As long as it was done before the site was contaminated further, the exact minute doesn't change the logical link.
- C. (Incorrect): The argument mentions the alloy "does not belong to the car crushed." Whether future cars might use it is irrelevant to an accident that has already occurred with a specific, known vehicle.
- D. (Incorrect): This is a common "distractor." While other heavy machinery might use the paint, the argument already places a specific group of cranes at the scene at the right time. Finding out if other machinery was there is less critical than determining if the paint found was actually from a collision that just happened.
- E. (Incorrect): The time of day doesn't impact the presence of the alloy or the physical evidence found at the scene.
