Patty: Tubeless tyres have low probability of bursting at high car spe

Question

Patty: Tubeless tyres have low probability of bursting at high car speeds. This can prevent hundreds of accidents from happening. I want the state transport department to mandate tubeless tyres for all cars.

Rudy: I don't completely agree with your request. After all, cars are only a certain percentage of all the vehicles in the state and commercial vehicles such as trucks contribute to larger numbers of accidents that cars do.

Which of the following suggests the fundermental weakness in Rudy's reasoning?

A. She compares accidents by one type of vehicles with accidents by all other types.
B. She fails to back her claims with clear, relevant data.
C. She only compares the number of accidents and ignores the severity of the accidents.
D. She assumes that Patty is advocating tubeless tyres strictly for cars only.
E. She rejects a potential solution for part of a problem on grounds that it doesn't solve the entire problem.

Source: Experts Global

TaN1213 · Answer

E for me.
Rudy sees the problem correctly but underestimates the positive impact that the plan of Patty will account for toward solving the problem as a whole.

harinageshwar · Answer

Can someone explain why D is wrong .

Posted from my mobile device

Luca1111111111111 · Answer

I guess because she is only speaking about car accidents and refers then also only to cars "I want the state transport department to mandate tubeless tyres for  all cars " but does not clearly say ONLY for cars as no other vehicles are mentioned in the whole argument. So, it is not really weakening the argument. E is therefore a much better choice

dushyanta · Answer

Because Rudy is not assuming it.. Patty is talking about Cars only, But that is not the weakness of Rudy's argument
Rudy is not accepting the request (solution specific to Cars' accidents) while maintaining it doesn't solve the entire problem

nishthagupta · Answer

d is wrong because 
1)No mention of tubeless tires by ruby
2)Patty is actually advocating tubeless tires for cars. There is no mention of other types of vehicles.

budhni · Answer

The question basically asks for flaw in reasoning of Rudy. I think A should be correct answer. As parry talks about only cars. whereas Rudy compares Cars with other vehicles. Moreover , In option E, "rejects " is extreme. 
Experts please revert.

kush09 · Answer

let me try answer your question,

Rudy, correctly compare accidents from car's with accidents from trucks , however, in doing so she is rejecting the solution from Patty whcih is solving part of the problem, whcih is option E.

Hope this helps.

SolankiDas · Answer

E says she rejectes the solution but the para says "I don't completely agree" which doesn't mean the she rejectes

Posted from my mobile device

sayan640 · Answer

I also thought on the similar lines and ended up choosing D. KarishmaB   MartyMurray  kindly share your thoughts.

sayan640 · Answer

AjiteshArun  Is this a flawed question ?

Posted from my mobile device

Sushi_545 · Answer

hi @bb,@bunuel,
is this flawed answer . "I don't completely agree with your request" doesnt mean she rejects

Patty: Tubeless tyres have low probability of bursting at high car spe

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Patty: Tubeless tyres have low probability of bursting at high car spe

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards