Last visit was: 21 Jul 2024, 08:43 It is currently 21 Jul 2024, 08:43
Toolkit
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

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.

# Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Alum
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4331
Own Kudos [?]: 51705 [158]
Given Kudos: 2326
Location: United States (WA)
Concentration: Leadership, General Management
Schools: Ross '20 (M)
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GMAT 2: 740 Q49 V42 (Online)
GMAT 3: 760 Q50 V42 (Online)
GPA: 3.8
WE:Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64549 [49]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 15126
Own Kudos [?]: 66762 [5]
Given Kudos: 436
Location: Pune, India
General Discussion
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1253
Own Kudos [?]: 1265 [0]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

Quote:
(A) The decrease in the risk of car theft conferred by having a car alarm is greatest when only a few cars have such alarms.

Do you agree that (A) is a correct weakener choice for the plan to fail ?
VP
Joined: 12 Feb 2015
Posts: 1060
Own Kudos [?]: 2168 [1]
Given Kudos: 77
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
1
Kudos

Evaluation of a Plan

Situation An insurance company is paying more money on car-theft claims than anticipated. To reduce these payments, the company is planning to offer discounts to customers whose cars have antitheft devices or alarm systems, because such cars are less likely to be stolen.

Reasoning What piece of information would indicate that the plan is likely to succeed? Pro-Tect wishes to reduce its annual payouts, and one way for that to happen is for fewer cars insured by Pro-Tect to be stolen. To help accomplish this, Pro-Tect is offering discounts to policyholders whose cars are so equipped, because cars equipped with antitheft devices or alarm systems are less likely to be stolen than are cars without such devices. What would interfere with the success of Pro-Tect's plan? Car owners would probably resist investing in antitheft devices or alarm systems if the cost of such systems is higher than the discount they will receive. So if Pro-Tect sets the discount at a level that makes installing antitheft devices seem like a bargain to car owners, the plan will most likely succeed.

Option C is Correct. This statement suggests that Pro-Tect's plan will provide an effective incentive for car owners to install antitheft devices; this statement therefore properly identifies information that indicates the plan is likely to achieve its goal.

Why are the incorrect answers "incorrect":-

Option A is incorrect: Pro-Tect's plan is designed to increase the number of cars equipped with car alarms. If having more cars equipped with car alarms reduces those alarms' effectivity in preventing thefts, then Pro-Tect's plan is unlikely to achieve its goal.

Option B is incorrect: Pro-Tect's claims in relation to those of other insurance companies are not relevant to whether Pro-Tect's plan to reduce its own car-theft claims will achieve its goal.

Option D is incorrect: Because Pro-Tect's plan does not involve raising the premiums it charges, restrictions on its ability to do so are irrelevant to whether that plan will achieve its goal.

Option E is incorrect: Pro-Tect's plan does not distinguish among different models of car, so this statement indicates nothing about whether the proposed plan will succeed.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
GMATNinja IanStewart AnishPassi MartyTargetTestPrep - i chose C but i did have a follow up on C that is bothering me

All option C does is frankly say -- the plan will have a lot of customer buy-in / customers will be excited to hear about this deal / customers will most likely buy in

But that doesn't mean the plan itself will achieve its goal

The eventual goal of the plan is to reduce annual payouts. specifically

Where is the proof that just because many customers will buy into this policy -- the goal (of reducing annual payout) will come to fruition ?

I was looking for something that strengthen this bit in pink specifically
Quote:
-- Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars

Isn't strengthening the pink 'a better way' to strengthen the argument ?

C just says -- many people will be excited to buy into our new updated insurance policy we are offering

But if the pink isnt necessarily true -- well then the entire argument collapses (even if many people buy in.)

Thoughts ?
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9459 [3]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
3
Kudos
jabhatta2 wrote:
The eventual goal of the plan is to reduce annual payouts. specifically

Where is the proof that just because many customers will buy into this policy -- the goal (of reducing annual payout) will come to fruition ?

I was looking for something that strengthen this bit in pink specifically
Quote:
-- Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars

Isn't strengthening the pink 'a better way' to strengthen the argument ?

You're right to focus on the goal of the plan, but what you've highlighted in pink is a premise of the argument. It doesn't need to be strengthened, because premises are automatically true. We know if cars have antitheft devices, they're much less likely to be stolen. So if insured cars have these devices, they won't be stolen as often, and presumably the insurer will pay out less in insurance. The only reason the plan could fail is if drivers don't install the car alarms. When we learn from C that the discount will make car alarms affordable to insured drivers, that gives us more reason to think drivers will buy them, so C is a helpful answer here.
VP
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Posts: 1352
Own Kudos [?]: 221 [0]
Given Kudos: 188
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
IanStewart wrote:
jabhatta2 wrote:
The eventual goal of the plan is to reduce annual payouts. specifically

Where is the proof that just because many customers will buy into this policy -- the goal (of reducing annual payout) will come to fruition ?

I was looking for something that strengthen this bit in pink specifically
Quote:
-- Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars

Isn't strengthening the pink 'a better way' to strengthen the argument ?

You're right to focus on the goal of the plan, but what you've highlighted in pink is a premise of the argument. It doesn't need to be strengthened, because premises are automatically true. We know if cars have antitheft devices, they're much less likely to be stolen. So if insured cars have these devices, they won't be stolen as often, and presumably the insurer will pay out less in insurance. The only reason the plan could fail is if drivers don't install the car alarms. When we learn from C that the discount will make car alarms affordable to insured drivers, that gives us more reason to think drivers will buy them, so C is a helpful answer here.

Hi IanStewart - given the premise in pink in 100 % definitive -- Can I infer

Even if 1 customer ONLY buys into this updated plan (Pro-Tect Insurance is offering) - Just one customer -- The goal (of reduce annual payouts) WILL DEFINITELY BE achieved ?

Given the pink CANNOT be questioned -- if 1 customer ONLY buys into this updated plan -- Pro-Tect insurance will pay reduced annual payouts. why do I say - just 1 customer only ?

Well -
Quote:
-- Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars

Seems a bit strange of an inference.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4128
Own Kudos [?]: 9459 [1]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
1
Kudos
I don't follow how you've drawn your inference, but we don't need the right answer here to tell us that the goal "will definitely be achieved". The question asks us to pick an answer that makes the company's plan "likely to achieve its goal" ('likely', not 'definitely').

If only one person buys the car alarm, that's not likely to make a difference to the insurer (unless the new alarm successfully thwarts a car theft, but that presumably doesn't happen too often, unless car theft is really common). But if, with no alarm, a driver has their car stolen 1/1000 of the time in a year (i.e. with probability 1/1000) and with the alarm their car is never stolen, then if the insurer persuades 1000 drivers to install the alarm, the insurer could expect to make one less payout for car theft each year. There will naturally be variance because of randomness, so the insurer can't be sure of anything, but the "expected value" (a math concept that you use constantly in an MBA, and which I imagine most MBA applicants have seen before, though it's not tested on the GMAT) of the car insurer's annual payout goes down for every driver who installs the alarm, so in that sense, even one driver makes a difference.

But you really don't need to think about any of that to answer this question.
Manager
Joined: 08 Aug 2021
Posts: 239
Own Kudos [?]: 135 [0]
Given Kudos: 160
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GMAT 1: 650 Q50 V28
GMAT 2: 670 Q49 V32
WE:Marketing (Insurance)
Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
souvik101990 wrote:
Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-theft claims than it expected. Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars. Consequently Pro-Tect, as part of an effort to reduce its annual payouts, will offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies if their cars have anti-theft devices or alarm systems.

Which of the following, if true, provides the strongest indication that the plan is likely to achieve its goal?

(A) The decrease in the risk of car theft conferred by having a car alarm is greatest when only a few cars have such alarms.

(B) The number of policyholders who have filed a claim in the past year is higher for Pro-Tect than for other insurance companies.

(C) In one or two years, the discount that Pro-Tect is offering will amount to more than the cost of buying certain highly effective antitheft devices.

(D) Currently, Pro-Tect cannot legally raise the premiums it charges for a given amount of insurance against car theft.

(E) The amount Pro-Tect has been paying out on car theft claims has been greater for some models of car than for others.

Conclusion - Consequently Pro-Tect, as part of an effort to reduce its annual payouts, will offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies if their cars have anti-theft devices or alarm systems

Premise 1 - Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-theft claims than it expected
Premise 2 - Cars with special antitheft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars

To strengthen the plan, we have to choose an answer choice, which shows that the annual payout will be reduced after offering discount on car-theft policies.
Option C - If the discount offered is more than the cost of buying certain highly effective antitheft devices, more people will buy highly effective antitheft devices to avail the discount offered. More the number of anti-theft devices installed, less will be the car theft claims, resulting in reduction in annual payouts.
Tutor
Joined: 10 Jul 2015
Status:Expert GMAT, GRE, and LSAT Tutor / Coach
Affiliations: Harvard University, A.B. with honors in Government, 2002
Posts: 1182
Own Kudos [?]: 2439 [0]
Given Kudos: 274
Location: United States (CO)
Age: 44
GMAT 1: 770 Q47 V48
GMAT 2: 730 Q44 V47
GMAT 3: 750 Q50 V42
GMAT 4: 730 Q48 V42 (Online)
GRE 1: Q168 V169

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
Top Contributor
Choice C is the correct answer of course (mostly because choices A, B, D, and E are lousy), but in my opinion it's a good example of a flawed correct answer on GMAT CR.

Why? It doesn't indicate who is buying the devices.

Sure, it's a reasonable assumption that the consumer is the one buying the anti-theft devices (which is a strengthener because it increases the likelihood of consumers utilizing the discount), since that is the very point of the proposed discount, but if it were the company buying the devices (not a preposterous suggestion), then this answer would in some ways be a weakener, because in that case, the discount would cost the company more than simply providing these devices directly to consumers, with the exact same effect (increased consumer protection from theft).

Thus, you have to assume correctly that the answer is talking about the consumers buying the devices for it to make sense, and then it becomes a question about implementation and human decision-making. In other words, it's a strengthener because it shows us that consumers are likely to take advantage of the proposed discount because it makes financial sense.

Thus, in my option, Choice C should read something more like this:

"In one or two years, the discount that Pro-Tect is offering to consumers will amount to more than they would pay to buy certain highly effective antitheft devices."
Director
Joined: 04 Jun 2020
Posts: 542
Own Kudos [?]: 73 [0]
Given Kudos: 623
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
GMATNinja wrote:
The question stem itself asks us to evaluate Pro-Tect's plan, so let's make sure that we're 100% clear about the language of that plan. The plan is to "offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies if their cars have anti-theft devices or alarm systems." The goal of this plan is "to reduce [Pro-Tect's] annual payouts [on car theft claims]."

"Cars with special anti-theft devices or alarm systems are much less likely to be stolen than are other cars." Pro-Tect wants its policy-holders to install anti-theft devices or alarm systems (if they don't already have such devices/systems) in order to decrease the likelihood that those policy-holders will have their cars stolen. This, in turn, should reduce car theft claims and, thus, reduce Pro-Tect's annual payouts on car theft claims.

So, which of the answer choices provides the strongest indication that the plan is likely to achieve its goal of reducing Pro-Tect's annual payouts?

Quote:
(A) The decrease in the risk of car theft conferred by having a car alarm is greatest when only a few cars have such alarms.

This statement suggests that the effectiveness of car alarms actually DECREASES as the number of cars equipped with such alarms increases. Thus, even if the discount encourages some of Pro-Tect's customers to install car alarms, the security benefit of installing such an alarm might decrease with each successive installation. This statement doesn't suggest that Pro-Tect's plan will fail, but it certainly doesn't provide a strong indication that the plan will succeed. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
(B) The number of policyholders who have filed a claim in the past year is higher for Pro-Tect than for other insurance companies.

We are not interested in comparing Pro-Tect to other insurance companies. We only want to know whether the discount is likely to reduce annual payments on car theft claims. Choice (B) does not provide a strong indication either way and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(C) In one or two years, the discount that Pro-Tect is offering will amount to more than the cost of buying certain highly effective anti-theft devices.

In order for Pro-Tect's plan to work, at least some of the policy-holders who currently do not have an anti-theft device or alarm system must decide to install such a device or system because of the discount. If the cost of anti-theft devices is very high relative to the size of the discount, the discount might not be enough to encourage policy-holders to buy such devices. Choice (C) tells us that the devices would "pay for themselves" after only a year or two and, thus, that customers who install such devices will save money each successive year. The fact that customers would have a financial incentive to install such devices provides a strong indication that the plan will achieve its goal. Keep choice (C).

Quote:
(D) Currently, Pro-Tect cannot legally raise the premiums it charges for a given amount of insurance against car theft.

We want to know whether the proposed discount is likely to reduce annual payments on car theft claims, and this has nothing to do with the cost of insurance premiums. Choice (D) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

Quote:
(E) The amount Pro-Tect has been paying out on cartheft claims has been greater for some models of car than for others.

The proposed plan has nothing to do with car models. Choice (E) does not suggest whether the plan will achieve its goal, so (E) can be eliminated.

Choice (C) is the best answer.

(D) Currently, Pro-Tect cannot legally raise the premiums it charges for a given amount of insurance against car theft.

We want to know whether the proposed discount is likely to reduce annual payments on car theft claims, and this has nothing to do with the cost of insurance premiums. Choice (D) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

GMATNinja
Thank you for your explanation. To clarify on Choice D, this is just focusing on revenues (the premium we can command) but the argument is focused on controlling costs --> what we pay out, correct?

What I found confusing about the correct answer choice was the "one to two" years part. What is there is a new technology in a few years, or these technologies become obsolete?
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6990
Own Kudos [?]: 64549 [1]
Given Kudos: 1823
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
1
Kudos
woohoo921 wrote:

(D) Currently, Pro-Tect cannot legally raise the premiums it charges for a given amount of insurance against car theft.

We want to know whether the proposed discount is likely to reduce annual payments on car theft claims, and this has nothing to do with the cost of insurance premiums. Choice (D) is irrelevant and can be eliminated.

GMATNinja
Thank you for your explanation. To clarify on Choice D, this is just focusing on revenues (the premium we can command) but the argument is focused on controlling costs --> what we pay out, correct?

What I found confusing about the correct answer choice was the "one to two" years part. What is there is a new technology in a few years, or these technologies become obsolete?

Pro-Tect has come up with a specific plan to reduce payouts: it will give people discounts if their cars have anti-theft devices. The question asks us to find the answer choice that provides the strongest indication that this particular plan will achieve its goal.

(D) talks about a completely different plan that might impact profits: raising premiums. It tells us that this alternate plan isn't an option.

That really doesn't give us any insight at all into the plan mentioned in the passage. Will Pro-Tect achieve its goal by giving the discounts? Because (D) talks about a different plan, it doesn't weigh in on one side or the other. Eliminate (D).

Here's (C):
Quote:
(C) In one or two years, the discount that Pro-Tect is offering will amount to more than the cost of buying certain highly effective antitheft devices.

This gives us reason to believe that people will actually install the anti-theft devices. If it only takes a year or two to make up the cost of installing the device, then surely it makes sense to put one in your car. After all, no one wants their car to be stolen anyway, so it's a win-win for the car owner and for Pro-Tect.

If people actually put the device in their cars, then their cars will be stolen less frequently. In turn, Pro-Tect will have to pay out fewer car-theft claims, and their annual payouts will be reduced.

To your point about what might happen in a year or two: sure, the devices could become obsolete, or some other product could come out on the market. That's ok, though -- we don't need to PROVE the Pro-Tect's plan will work. We just need an option that provides an indication that payouts will be reduced.

(C) gives us that indication, while the other options do not. That's why (C) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17529
Own Kudos [?]: 869 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
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.
Re: Pro-Tect Insurance Company has recently been paying out more on car-th [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6990 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
CR Forum Moderator
824 posts