GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 22 Feb 2020, 17:48

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 261
Location: United States
Concentration: Technology, Other
GPA: 2.44
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User
Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 Jun 2013, 01:04
1
12
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  85% (hard)

Question Stats:

46% (01:43) correct 54% (01:39) wrong based on 355 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.

The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A)Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.

(C)Suggesting that the politician uses evidence about few cases to draw a general conclusion.

(D)Presenting information that is more recent than information on which the politician’s argument is built.

(E)Implying that the politician manipulates information about the percent decrease to draw a conclusion about a number decrease.

Originally posted by guerrero25 on 09 Jun 2013, 18:51.
Last edited by guerrero25 on 10 Jun 2013, 01:04, edited 1 time in total.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Posts: 57
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: Booth '17 (M)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.66
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jun 2013, 23:35
guerrero25 wrote:
Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.

The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A)Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.

(C)Suggesting that the politician uses evidence about few cases to draw a general conclusion.

(D)Presenting information that is more recent than information on which the politician’s argument is built.

(E)Implying that the politician manipulates information about the percent decrease to draw a conclusion about a number decrease.


C, D and E are not suitable. Out of A and B, A is more appropriate because B says that the journalist's evidence suggests that the politicians argument is not accurate. But the passage merely mentions that the basis of the statistic changed. So essentially the assumption behind the figure has changed but the figure itself cannot be deemed inaccurate
_________________
When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 21 Jun 2013
Posts: 28
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2013, 03:21
1
guerrero25 wrote:
Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.

The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?

Clearly the contention is between A and B. Let's break the argument into evidences and assumptions.
Politician:
Evidence 1: 2009 GoL increased fines for traffic violation.
Evidence 2: Since 2009 SCA reduced by 20%.
Assumption: Increase in fine led to the decrease in number of SCA.

Journalist:
Evidence: Until 2009, SCA = accidents involving 2 cars. Starting 2009, SCA = accidents involving 3 cars.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate. Incorrect , because the evidence provided by the journalist talks only about the SCA and its meaning. It does not invalidate any of the evidences provided by the politician.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2012
Posts: 177
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Oct 2013, 01:10
I took 10 mins but finally figured out A
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 03 May 2013
Posts: 262
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Dec 2014, 21:24
1
guerrero25 wrote:
Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.

The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A)Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.

(C)Suggesting that the politician uses evidence about few cases to draw a general conclusion.

(D)Presenting information that is more recent than information on which the politician’s argument is built.

(E)Implying that the politician manipulates information about the percent decrease to draw a conclusion about a number decrease.


Politician: Increased fines-------- LED TO -------- decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Assumption...1. Nothing else led to decrease in SCA.
2. SCAs did not lead to Increased fines.
3. It was not coincidental - that Increased fines and decrease in the number of serious car accidents happened simultaneously.

A. Correct...... see 1. above .... it was not fines but incorrect interpretation of what is SCA that led to the increase in SCA.

B. Wrong. EVIDENCE CANT BE WRONG.... Evidence is evidence..... interpretation may be wrong. Addl info may weaken the assumption but not negate a fact.......


kudos if u please......
Manager
Manager
avatar
Status: Applied
Joined: 02 May 2014
Posts: 118
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GPA: 3.35
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Dec 2014, 23:26
The choice A talks about the assumption. lets see how the journalist undermines the assumption.He gives additional information is correct but he is also undermining the assumption.Because for the politician to conclude that serious accidents decreases by 20 percent means he has to assume a situation that number of accidents had remained the same .But the journalist attacks this assumption by stating that the domain of what a serious has changed and that earlier what was considered a serious accident is now not considered. so this reason is the best. Hope this explanation helps.
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 23 Jan 2013
Posts: 512
Schools: Cambridge'16
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2016, 23:11
1
took 1'44'' to take A

Causation bias is clear after reading the Politician statement. And assumption is "no other reason for declining the accidents"

Journalist attacks these assumption
Retired Moderator
avatar
P
Joined: 04 Aug 2016
Posts: 472
Location: India
Concentration: Leadership, Strategy
GPA: 4
WE: Engineering (Telecommunications)
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Apr 2017, 20:16
The journalist agrees with the conclusion and evidence stated by the politician; however, he provides an alternate cause which could have led to the conclusion.

hence A
Non-Human User
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 8360
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Jan 2020, 02:55
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.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled   [#permalink] 21 Jan 2020, 02:55
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne