Radar detectors are devices that sense the nearby use of a radar gun

Hi ziyuen,

I actually reached the solution by eliminating all other possible answers as they strengthen conclusion. However, I still skeptical about explanation answer B. Let's make GMATNinja shares hos thoughts.

Dear Charles,

The official answer provided by Veritas is not convincing for me to weaken the argument. It assumes that those drivers will get twice or 3 times tickets. I think that it is huge assumption that may or may not be true.

Can you please share your thoughts.

Yeah, the question-writers were clearly trying to copy an LSAT question here. It's somewhere in LSAT PrepTests #29-38, I think -- but in any case, they didn't do a great job on the execution. Again, it's brutally, brutally hard for even the best test-prep companies to copy the style of actual tests. The GMAT spends $1500-$3000 developing each individual question, and I have reason to suspect that the figure is even higher for the LSAT.

So this isn't a criticism of the question-writers, since they're trying to accomplish the impossible... but fwiw, here's where they lost me:


No, that's not really what the conclusion is saying. Here's the conclusion of the passage:


Now, that's a completely different animal. In writing the explanation, they're committing a cardinal sin of CR: changing the language of the conclusion so that it says something subtly different. Actually, this isn't even subtle: the explanation changes the conclusion pretty radically. As GMATNinjaTwo likes to say, whoever wrote the explanation is "putting words in the passage's mouth" -- and that's a huge error when you're doing CR.

(B) might be the best of the bunch, but it's still a pretty lousy answer. So don't worry too much about this one.

Agree with GMATNinja, while option B seems to be the possible choice but it is debatable, also OE is not crystal clear.

GMATNinja bb, these days I see quite a few problems especially in SC and CR which actually in a way are not logically sound. Sometimes, these questions end up creating confusions for many people(beginners like me:P).

Can we have some flag associated with each question in which forum moderators can update the quality of the problem? Say something like "Trusted by experts" (Don't know if this is appropriate, but something of this sort). At the moment we only have the difficulty level of the problem which is determined by the answers given by users.
This will help users not to worry about their wrong answers in flawed or debatable questions.

Assumptions :
1. Radar detectors have no other purposes that can save money for the user but to detect radar guns. Drivers install the RD only to avoid radio guns and thereby fines consequently.
2. Drivers who installed RD are not the ones who frequently exceed the speed limits and end up paying more fines.

By weakening any one of the assumptions we can arrive at the weakener.

A. Several highway patrol agencies have begun developing strategies to target drivers who use radar detectors.
Irrelevant
B. Only the drivers most likely to receive speeding tickets purchase and use radar detectors.
Weakens the 2nd assumption
C. Radar detectors only cost a fraction of the expense that drivers spend on the purchase and maintenance of their vehicles.
Doesn't weaken the argument
D. Radar detectors do not help drivers avoid other types of tickets, such as those for failure to fully stop at a stop light.
Other types are out of scope
E. Mobile phone companies have recently developed apps that will alert drivers to the presence of police officers along their route.[/quote] Further strengthening the conclusion by providing alternate source

apart from B , we can eliminate all choices easily ..

But overall this is not a good question. 10% more likely to receive speeding tickets, means you have more chance to receive than anyone.
It does not men if those drivers were actually “supposed to” get twice or three times as many tickets.