Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often higher for red ca

The fact that we can save lives by stopping X does not mean that every occurrence of X leads to a loss of life.

The accident here may be caused by reckless drivers with a preference for red cars. I should know 'cos I'm one of them

Go for C

C for me.
E is wrong because the stem says "then lives could undoubtedly be saved"
this means that some lives could be saved, not all.

shud be "C"....even with a ban on red cars, reclkess drivers cud still buy other cars and cause accident. "E" is close call too, but I think stem's last sentence doesn't use categorical statement that no lives will be lost if red cars are banned.

C for me.
The argument doesn't make an assumption that 'every' accident results in some loss of life. It maybe making an assumption that some accidents result in loss of life.

I got C too.
... if red cars are banned then also careless drivers will still drive some other colored cars. The no. of accidents will not go down and people will still lose lives.

I think E uses an assumption also that loss of life is propotional to the number of accidents but I think the assumption in C is "more" incorrect.

....actually on second thoughts...the statment in E is not really an assumption of the argument. The argument does not say that that EVERY accident will lead to a death.

C is the right answer.

Conclusion: Life will be saved by banning red cars.

What is the reasoning that will weaken the above conclusion.

(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive recklessly have a preference for red cars --> By banning red cars, we wont be keeping the reckless drivers off the road. Hence life is still at stake every after banning red cars.

(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life --> every automobile accident doesnot lead to loss. But every accident involving red car MAY lead to death. This reasoning is not strong enough to weaken the above conclusion.

I think the answer is C. It can't be E because nowhere in the argument is there an indication that the author thinks every automobile accident leads to loss of lives. The author only says "lives could undoubtedly be saved", he does not indicate that all lives can be saved.

I go with C

It can't be E because the argument is articulated around the "red cars" idea. Although the life-loss is part of the argument, the whole argument deals with red cars as part of the evidence, assumption, and conclusion.

This is the explanation from Manhattan by noah. Hope this clears

Source: PowerScore Forum

In this stimulus the author presents two things that are correlated, and then draws a causal conclusion from them. This argument is a classic fallacy. Just because there is a higher percentage of red cars involved in accidents, this does not mean that the red cars cause the accidents. For the conclusion to follow, the argument must demonstrate that the red color actually causes accidents, but it only demonstrates a correlation between red and accidents. Read this stimulus and react to it with your own commonsense; can getting rid of red cars really prevent accidents? Attack the conclusion.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because the argument does not claim that insurance companies have or do not have the right to charge higher premiums. It simply mentions these rates as a premise to support its causal conclusion. This answer is not a part of the argument; therefore, it cannot be a flaw in the argument.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because it also deals with the higher premiums. If this fact were true, then it may justify the higher premiums for red cars. However, the argument has already justified these premiums in a different way, by stating that the red color of the car causes accidents. Therefore, this answer is unrelated to the argument.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Now, the causal connection between red color and accidents has been destroyed. If bad drivers prefer red, then they are the cause of the accidents, not the red color. Therefore, if the red cars were banned, these drivers would just have to buy other cars and lives would not be saved or accidents reduced.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because it tries to tempt you by naming something that is missing in the argument: an exact percentage. However, in this argument we do not need to know an exact percentage; it is irrelevant. As long as there is a "higher" percentage of red cars, the correlation between red cars and accidents exists. The flaw in the argument is mistaking this correlation for a cause and effect relationship.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect, but it is tricky. The argument does make a big assumption in the conclusion, jumping from automobile accidents to lives being saved. However, the argument does not assume that every accident results in loss of life, as this answer choice states. Also, the flaw is not in this assumption, but in the cause and effect conclusion. If you attack the stimulus as you read it, you should see it.

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.