saiprasanna wrote:
MartyTargetTestPrep can you please put the OE
Here's a quick explanation.
Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten years by all major insurance companies show that, of all cars sold, more cars of model X were stolen than cars of any other model of car. Therefore, cars of model X are the most likely of all cars to be stolen.
The reasoning of the argument is most vulnerable to criticism that the argument
A. fails to consider that the most stolen car is not necessarily the kind of car that is most likely to be stolen.
The passage mentions only that more cars of model X than cars of any other model were stolen. This information does not support the conclusion that cars of model X are the most likely to be stolen, because determining the likelihood that a car of a certain model will be stolen requires information on the proportion of cars of that model that are stolen, not just information on the absolute number of cars of that model that are stolen. Information on the absolute number of cars of a model that were stolen tells us very little about the likelihood that that car will be stolen. So, the argument is flawed because it bases the conclusion that model X is the most likely to be stolen on information that does not support that conclusion, the information model X is the most stolen.
B. fails to account for the possibility that the total number of cars stolen each year has varied significantly.
The data used to support the argument is the aggregate data from ten years. Variation from year to year does not change that data or the implications of that data.
C. assumes without sufficient warrant that there are not cases in which cars of model X have been stolen that have gone unreported to police or insurance companies.
If such cases exist, model X has been stolen even more than reports indicate it has. If it has, there is even more reason to believe that model X is the most likely to be stolen. So, assuming that there are not even more cases of cars of model X being stolen certainly is not a flaw in the support for the conclusion.
D. provides support for its conclusion based in part on the presupposition that the conclusion itself is indisputable.
The argument simply does not use this approach at all. The conclusion is based entirely on the data presented.
E. arrives at a conclusion based on a statistical pattern without explaining why that pattern exists.
It's fine to use statistical data to support a conclusion without explaining why patterns observed in that data exist. Yes, the support for the conclusion would be even stronger were the factors underlying the patterns included among the premises of the argument. All the same, it can be reasonable to base a conclusion entirely on patterns in statistical data.
The correct answer is (A).
_________________
★
★
★
★
★
350 REVIEWS
5-STAR RATED ONLINE GMAT QUANT SELF STUDY COURSE
NOW WITH GMAT VERBAL (Pre-Launch)
See why Target Test Prep is the top rated GMAT quant course on GMAT Club. Read Our Reviews