Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent

Question

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given above?

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions.

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws.

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

We need to select a conclusion, so let's make sure we're clear about the given information. As always, pay close attention to the author's word choice:

"Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours  can  prevent automobile collisions." - Such laws  might  prevent automobile collisions, but they might not. 
 "Daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator." - This suggests that headlights would be more useful in improving daylight visibility in countries farther away from the equator. Thus, headlight laws would be " more  effective in preventing collisions in those countries." 
 "In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States." - The laws are more effective farther away from the equator, and currently this is reflected in the actual data: only countries farther from the equator than the US have such laws.

Does that mean that headlight laws would be ineffective in the US or someplace even closer to the equator? Not necessarily... all we know is that effectiveness INCREASES as the distance from the equator increases. It is possible that headlight laws would be useful even ON the equator. The passage does not tell us how effective headlights are at various distances from the equator.

So which of the following conclusions can be properly drawn based on the given information?

As described above, just because the continental US does not have such laws does NOT mean that headlights would not help. Perhaps drivers in the continental US who use their headlights are slightly LESS likely to become involved in a collision. The information in the passage does not strongly suggest whether (A) is true, so eliminate this one.

We are not given information to compare the effect of poor daylight visibility to other factors that lead to automobile collisions. Daylight visibility might be a relatively minor factor or it might be a major factor. We don't know either way, so eliminate (B).

We know that headlight laws CAN prevent collisions, but this does not allow us to compare collision rates in the US to collision rates in countries that have such laws. For example, perhaps Canada has headlight laws but still has a higher proportion of collisions than the US. Without headlight laws, Canada would probably have an even HIGHER proportion of collisions. In other words, headlight laws might reduce the rate of collision in Canada, but we don't know how that reduced rate compares to the rate in the US. Eliminate (C).

Again, headlight laws can REDUCE the risk of collisions, but we don't have enough information to compare the number of collisions in the continental US to the number of collisions in countries with daytime headlight laws. For reasons similar to those discussed for option (C), choice (D) should be eliminated.

We know that the laws are MORE effective the farther away you move from the equator. Since the only countries that currently have such laws are farther from the equator than the continental US, we can infer that the laws would be more effective in those countries than in the continental US.

Choice (E) can be properly inferred and is the best conclusion based on the information in the passage.

laxieqv · Answer

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given above?

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.
 ---> it doesn't sum up all the premises ---> can't be a conclusion. 

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions.
 ---> no point in the passage indicates this ---> out. 

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws.
 -----> US is better than farther countries in term of being closer to the equator; however, US is worse than farther countries in term of not having such laws -----> positive side + negative side ----> the result is not necessarily negative ----> C is not applausible ---> out. 

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.
 ----> Same to C 

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.

 -----> Yeah, the reason why US doesn't have such laws is probably because such laws do less to prevent automobile collisions in US than they do in farther countries. ----> applausible. Note that the use of "would probably" makes E least vulnerable to criticism! 

Go for E.

HIMALAYA · Answer

Choose E.

this law works better in the countries where visibility is poor. countries that are farther from equator have poor visibility thant continental USA.

riteshgupta1 · Answer

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws. 

- this is good. The argument clearly says that USA, the daytime visibility is good and laws will not help that much, but countries that have such laws already in place are away from the equator, so they have more chance of getting involved in an accident without the law.

ChrisLele · Answer

The Argument: the farther away from the equator, the more important it is to use daytime headlights while driving. Indeed, countries north of the U.S. mandate the use of headlights during the day. The U.S. should also require the use of daytime headlights, though such a move would not have as much an impact on lowering collisions the way it does in more northern climes.

Based on the information above, the question is asking what we can most reasonably conclude.

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.

The argument says that the use of daylight headlights lowers the collision rate the more north of the equator you go. Therefore, daylight headlight use in the continental U.S. would help reduce the collision rate.

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions.

From the prompt, we do not know anything about which other factors account for collisions in countries north of the U.S. So we can't say that poor visibility is the most important factor.

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws.

This one is tempting because you can make the connection that countries up north have to use daytime headlights, so they are less likely to get into accidents during the daytime. But we do not know what the original proportion of either the U.S or northern countries are. So while daytime headlight reduces collision rate, without knowing the original proportion, we cannot say that the U.S. has more daytime collisions.

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.

We only know that daytime headlight laws reduce the collision rate, an effect more pronounced the more north one goes. However, we do not know the total number of accidents up north. Maybe a hundred thousand accidents occur in northern countries. Maybe only ten thousand.

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.

Those countries that have the laws are the ones that are more north of the United States, and thus the ones farther from the equator. The farther from the equator, the more important the use of daytime headlights. So the use of daytime headlights in the U.S. would be helpful, but probably not so much as in countries north of the U.S. ANSWER

AnubhavK · Answer

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

Reasoning What conclusion can be drawn from this information?

Countries with daytime headlight laws are all farther from the equator than is the continental United States. The location is significant because daytime visibility is worse in those countries than it is in the continental United States. How effective at preventing collisions would such laws be
in the continental United States with its greater proximity to the equator? 
It is reasonable to conclude that such laws would be less effective at preventing collisions there than they are in the countries farther from the equator.

INCORRECT A - Although daytime headlight use may be less effective in countries with more daylight, it cannot be concluded that U.S. drivers using daytime headlights would gain no benefit from them and would be just as likely to have collisions as those who do not use them.

INCORRECT B - The passage offers no evidence for the conclusion that poor visibility is the greatest cause for collisions in these countries.

INCORRECT C - Many factors besides use of headlights during daylight hours influence accident rates, and these factors may vary widely from one country to another. We are given no information about these other factors or about their relative impact in various countries.

INCORRECT D - Without specific data, no conclusion can be drawn about the relative number of accidents that occur.

CORRECT 'E' - This statement properly identifies a conclusion to be drawn from the given information.

Hope this helps.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

Type - inference

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights. - Incorrect -- we can't say that use of headlights during daylight hours in the continental US is completely useless

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions. - Incorrect - Single most important factor seems too extreme

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws. Incorrect - we are not given the number of collisions in daytime or night for any country

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States. - Incorrect - we can't comment on the number of automobile collisions

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws. - Correct

Answer E

aceGMAT21 · Answer

Which of the following  conclusions could be most properly drawn  from the information given above?

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights. 
 We cannot conclude this information from the above set of statements. The above set of facts are talking about the laws requiring the use of headlights and the applicability of those laws in countries with poor visibility w.r.t. to the other countries which are closer to the equator. INCORRECT.

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions. 
 Though the above bunch of facts are talking about the daylight visibility as a factor responsible for automobile collisions. But solely on the basis of that we cannot conclude that it is the SINGLE MOST important factor. There can be several other factors as well. INCORRECT.

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws. 
 This option is talking about the  PROPORTION  of something. Let us see what that proportion is all about,

proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime = (Number of collisions that occur in daytime)/(total number of collisions in daytime + night time)

For calculating this proportion we need to know the values of -- Number of collisions that occur in daytime in both the US and the countries farther from the equator; plus we also need to know (total number of collisions in daytime + night time); But from the above set of facts we cannot comment on this proportion as we are lacking all these details. INCORRECT.

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States. 
 We cannot conclude that. Just because there is no need for the daytime headlight laws in the US does not mean that there can be less accidents in the US. There even can be more accidents due to other factors but we do not have much information to comment on that. INCORRECT.

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws. 
 CORRECT. Infact the best of the lot!! This is exactly what we know from the above set of facts.

CAMANISHPARMAR · Answer

Author:-
General Background:- Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions.
Author's viewpoint:- However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries.  This is an important statement from the point of view of what should be follow up conclusion. 
In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.  The author is providing additional evidence that there seems no such requirement for such laws in continental United States

The conclusion must say something about such laws and that it is not required in continental United States

Option E says this perfectly:- Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.

prabsahi · Answer

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent automobile collisions. However, since daylight visibility is worse in countries farther from the equator, any such laws would obviously be more effective in preventing collisions in those countries. In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

Which of the following conclusions could be most properly drawn from the information given above?

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.

For people like me who got struck with A and E (like me )

Note :For Inference/MBT questions .The correct option should be true 100% times.

Notice the premise carefully.
 
any such laws would obviously be  more effective   in
preventing collisions in those countries

This doesn't imply such laws will be ineffective in equator and so this doesnt imply daylight visibility cannot be a problem in equator.
What if its foggy and cloudy all thorough ?? Right.

So option A cannot be MUST BE TRUE..that is not 100% true in all cases.

Now my takeaway from this problem would be to focus carefully on words and reply on POE.

Also,E properly summarizes the prmises and follows from the pasaage.

So my takeaways :

If X is greater than Y doesnt necessarily mean Y is zero
If X is more effective than Y doesnt necessarly mean Y is not effective .

Keep watching for these TRAPS in options.

Press Kudos if it helps!!

anbknaga · Answer

Argument Analysis : Laws requiring usage of headlights during day time for preventing automobile collision. It will be more effective to use in countries that are farther from equator because of less daylight visibility. The countries that have those laws are the ones farther from the equator when compared to the distance from the US and the equator.

Pre Thinking : Anything about day light visibility in USA and a matching sentence? BUT without new information.

A - Just as likely? Isn't it at least somewhat better (even 1%) than not having headlights at all? The argument says in the countries where day light visibility is less, head lights are most effective. That doesn't mean they are not effective in countries where daylight visibility is good.
B - No information is given about major cause of automobile collisions.
C - No information is given on number of accidents.
D - What about other reasons of collisions that happen due to break failure or other reasons apart from low visibility?
E -  Correct . Since visibility is almost more or less is better having these headlights ON won't make much of a difference to the drivers compared to the drivers who have less daylight visibility.

The correct answer is  E

energetics · Answer

headlight law = may prevent crashes
far north/south, visibility↓ = laws more effective
only countries with laws farther than US to north/south

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.
 could be true, no way to know from stem

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions.
 could be true, no way to know; exaggerates the effect of visibility --"most important"

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws.
 could be true, we don't know values

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.
 could be true, we don't know any values

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws. 
 logically follows from the idea that countries that have laws are more north/south of the US, thus get more benefit from the laws in preventing accidents than the US would

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hello my honorable experts,
Could you paraphrase the  highlighted  part with simple language, please?

AndrewN · Answer

Sure thing,  Asad . How about we start from the top and break this down bit by bit?

In fact  - This is a transition that is used to emphasize a point. We can skip over it without losing vital meaning.
 the only countries that actually have such laws  - The laws referenced in the passage have been adopted by just a few countries. We are about to find out which ones.
 are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.  - The continental United States consists of the 48 contiguous states (i.e. excluding Alaska and Hawai'i), so this part indicates that the countries from the second part are either farther north (presumably, by latitude) than the 48 contiguous states of the U.S. or farther south, if such a position were reflected across the equator.

Putting it all together, we can paraphrase:

The only countries that have the laws mentioned are farther away from the equator than the 48 U.S. states that do not include Alaska or Hawai'i.

I know a paraphrase can be shorter, but in this case, I think teasing out exactly what needs to be conveyed is worth the extra verbiage.

- Andrew

TheUltimateWinner · Answer

Hi honorable experts,
 RonPurewal ,  MartyTargetTestPrep ,  AjiteshArun ,  ccooley ,  DmitryFarber ,  GMATNinja ,  generis ,  VeritasKarishma ,  MentorTutoring 
Could you help me in the following reasoning, please? 
 Q1: 
From the passage:
The 'laws' has not been applied to 'continental United States'; laws are applied to the place which is farther from the equator than the continental United States is. 
The author is 100% sure (Because the author used the word ''  Obviously  ") that IF the laws are applied then it is more effective in preventing collisions in those countries that are farther from equator THAN the continental United States is. So, from the above writing, it seems that the world "probably" MUST be replaced with "  definitely  " in the correct choice E.
 Q2: 
One more thing:
The wording of the  last sentence  (In fact....) of the passage is not good to me. The  better version  should be:
 In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than  is  the continental United States IS. 
Am I missing anything here?

AndrewN · Answer

Asad , our paths cross again. I just finished answering another question you had posted, but there are some interesting talking points to raise from your current questions.

One thing you should know about GMAT™ answer choices by the time you take the exam is that correct answers often adopt cautious, non-committal language (e.g.,  may ,  sometimes ) while incorrect answers typically use more definitive, often overreaching language (e.g., will ,  must ,  always/never ). This is not to say that you can cross off anything with definitive language in it, just that being mindful of it can help guide you through some otherwise tricky choices. In this case, there is a logical connection between the laws mentioned and the countries that have adopted such laws. Since  daylight visibility is worse  in these countries, they have taken safety measures to  prevent automobile collisions  by passing the laws mentioned. However, and this speaks to your question, there is no guarantee that preventative measures will work, law or no law. Notice the not-so-definitive  would  just before the word in question. The  obviously  has more to do with potential than a certain outcome. That is, the author is arguing that it makes sense to enact laws about using lights during daytime driving in areas that would be more dimly lit and thus more likely to cause automobile accidents, nothing more.

There is nothing wrong with the placement of  is  in the original sentence. (Trust me, GMAC™ spends a lot of money coming up with questions and testing them. If something were grammatically incorrect, then it would not appear in a correct answer by the time the question made it through to an actual test.) It is really a matter of taste, kind of like splitting an infinitive. The more you place between the comparative marker-- than --and the second item being compared, the easier it is to lose track of the comparison. For example, I would hate to see a sentence that included an additional prepositional phrase with the  is  at the end:

In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than the continental United States, with all its fields of grain in the midwest and stunning autumnal displays in the northeast, is.

That sentence is harder to follow than one that would place  is  directly after the comparative  than . Do I always side with traditional or stilted grammar? Not at all. In fact (if I may use the transition), I once got into a friendly debate with a grammar professor of mine whose spiel was to diagram sentences, someone who held the traditional view that infinitives should  never  be split. I pointed out that, due to popular culture, some infinitives sounded strange without a split infinitive, and I gave the example

To boldly go  where no man has gone before.

I mean, really, who prefers  To go boldly... ? Like it or not, language is ever in motion. I side with the linguists on that one.

- Andrew

sanjna2023 · Answer

Similar question to practice - https://gmatclub.com/forum/topic160254.html

ArnauG · Answer

The given information suggests that countries farther from the equator, where daylight visibility is worse, are more likely to have laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours. Based on this information, let's evaluate each option:

(A) Drivers in the continental United States who used their headlights during the day would be just as likely to become involved in a collision as would drivers who did not use their headlights.
This conclusion cannot be properly drawn from the information given. The information focuses on the effectiveness of daylight headlight laws in preventing collisions in countries farther from the equator, but it does not provide direct information about the collision likelihood of drivers using headlights in the continental United States.

(B) In many countries that are farther from the equator than is the continental United States, poor daylight visibility is the single most important factor in automobile collisions.
This conclusion cannot be properly drawn from the information given. The information discusses the potential effectiveness of daylight headlight laws but does not provide specific data about the factors contributing to automobile collisions in countries farther from the equator.

(C) The proportion of automobile collisions that occur in the daytime is greater in the continental United States than in the countries that have daytime headlight laws.
This conclusion cannot be properly drawn from the information given. The information mentions the presence of daylight headlight laws in countries farther from the equator but does not provide data on the proportion of daytime collisions in the continental United States compared to those countries.

(D) Fewer automobile collisions probably occur each year in countries that have daytime headlight laws than occur within the continental United States.
This conclusion cannot be properly drawn from the information given. The information does not provide any data or comparison between the number of automobile collisions in countries with daylight headlight laws and the continental United States.

(E) Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.
This conclusion can be properly drawn from the information given. The information states that countries farther from the equator, where daylight visibility is worse, are more likely to have daytime headlight laws. Therefore, it can be inferred that the effectiveness of such laws in preventing collisions would likely be higher in those countries compared to the continental United States.

In conclusion, the most proper conclusion that can be drawn from the information given is (E): Daytime headlight laws would probably do less to prevent automobile collisions in the continental United States than they do in the countries that have the laws.

saby1410 · Answer

KarishmaB 
In fact, the only countries that actually have such laws are farther from the equator than is the continental United States.

does this statement means that all the countries are farther away from equator more as compared to continental united states is farther from equator
or 
it means all the countries are farther have these laws except US.

Can you explain this construction how  than  is playing here

Also can we infer the more farther is the countries the greater is the effectiveness

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Laws requiring the use of headlights during daylight hours can prevent

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