Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has stead

'What's missing from the discussion are the actual numbers, or any mention of exactly *who* these "average individuals" are, or *how many* of them there are, or how many cars they buy.

So let's think about that for a minute. Take the perspective of someone debating with this author and think of ways that his/her conclusion might not be quite right.

What if mostly super rich individuals buy cars these days, for example? Sure, the price of cars has gone up relative to the "average" income, but if most folks who are actually doing the buying are gazillion-ares, then it's not true that individuals spend a greater proportion of their income on cars, is it?'

this is in fact critical reasoning. dissecting the 'average' word used and then attacking the conclusion.




What if there are more companies and families (as distinguished from individuals) buying bigger cars these days? This could drive the "average" price of a car up, but it wouldn't change the proportion of an individuals' income spent on a car, necessarily. Maybe individuals are buying the cheapest cars out there, and the "average" is just inflated by all the families and companies buying up more pricey autos.

now dissecting 'individual' word and attacking the conclusion . can such question be handled with in the time constraints ? need some strategy

Narrowed down to C and E. I will go for E because if C is true then it will strengthen the argument rather than weaken.

Pls point out my mistakes so that I can improve ..

Sent from my Lenovo TAB S8-50LC using GMAT Club Forum mobile app

You are right, C strengthens the argument.

I marked A too. But still not convinced with E.

Option E talks about the proportion of new cars as a whole segment. Like a collective average.

While the argument talks about INDIVIDUAL average expense going up. We can relate individual expense in option A.

Not sure! Anyone?

should be E.
The argument assumes that individuals do most of the new car purchases and hence arrives at conclusion that individual's proportion of individual income spent on new car is greater than 5 years ago.

Choice E, hits the nail on this assumption by saying most of the new cars are not purchased not by individuals but by some other corporations or etc, thereby reducing the proportion of new cars purchased by individuals.

Great Question. This is data invalidation type of weakener. Here E states that the author is utilizing a small portion's data to comment on global scale.
Answer should be E.

Need some more information by expert still confuse by e , a and d

Posted from my mobile device

(A) Talks about a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner. whereas the conclusion states " individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago. " ,

Family Income of the Borrower is not to be considered for the increase in spending on cars for individuals...

(D) States both New Car Sales and Population where is doesn't mention anything about proportion of income spent, thus this option may be rejected.

nightblade354 i narrowed it down to A and E. Chose A. Why E is right? If you can help.

You're asking why E not A.

I eliminated A when i saw that A mentioned *proportion of individuals in households*. I was thinking how the cost of new car for the individual 25 years ago vs. cost new car for the individual now. That is how i eliminated A.

This is a weakening question so I must pick something that goes against the grain meaning somehow even though sales of cars have increased, sales of new cars has decreased or something in the new cars decreasing or as E says 'sales ... make up a smaller proportion...'

The argument is saying the price paid for a new car w.r.t individual income has increased. The argument is assuming that individual income has remained the same.
The weakener here will be that individual income has also increased. Then the conclusion is weakened.

Hi AjiteshArun and AndrewN



Was stuck between A and E, although I could see why A is wrong, I don't understand how E is right.



So the argument is talking about a category i.e Individuals who buy new cars.



According to E such category is a small portion of a broader category (there maybe corporates who buy cars too) that is people who buy new cars.
However, the argument still stands strong as the E doesnt affect the category of individuals who buy cars.

Can you please help. thank you

Hey,

E says that the sales Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of the new car sales that they did 25 years ago. Sales could be governments, corporates, etc and it is entirely possible that the new cares are being sold to the govts, companies, etc at a much much much higher rate that they are being sold to individuals because of which the the avg price of new cars is going up. This option is not a direct weakener, per se, but it distorts the argument pointing out a flaw in it. The flaw being that the overall avg price does not show a true story of the prices being charged to individuals.

I am no expert, but hope this helps and happy to discuss this further.

Hello, Hero1kF. I will be honest and say that (E) works as an answer on the LSAT, but I cannot come up with an analogous example within the official GMAT™ question pool. (Perhaps AjiteshArun will be able to find one.) As such, I would probably move on from this question, since it will not likely help you with the task at hand. If this were a GMAT™ question, I would expect (A) to correlate with a passage that mentioned households in the conclusion instead of individuals, or declined in choice (C) to say increased instead.

Thank you for thinking to ask me about this tough question.

- Andrew

I think so too, find this question a little strange. However, I think A would be incorrect in GMAT too.
Thanks Homie!

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.

(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago. - CORRECT.

For larger part of my attempted time I thought i was going wrong with E but could not understand what exactly. Although i got it right but I am not satisfied with this choice as for individuals who bought cars the average still persists and passage stands intact considering them only.

Anyway it is what it is.

Conclusion - Individuals buying cars now are paying a greater proportion of their income to get that car ( because income has not risen like the money spend on the cars.

Pre-Thinking- MAYBE THE INDIVIDUALS BUYING THESE CARS ARE THE ONES WITH HIGHER INCOMES AND THUS THEY ARE NOT SPENDING A GREATER PROPORTION OF THEIR INCOMES AS COMPARED TO INDIVIDUALS 25 YEARS AGO DOING SO.

E) basically says the proportion of individuals buying cars HAS DECREASED which COMPANIES OR OTHER ENTITITES BUYING THE CARS MAYBE BE THE ONES GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE CARS weakening the argument saying INDIVIDUALS are spending more.