|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
07 Jan 2004, 07:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
sport-utility vehicles have become extremely popular because of the robust and energetic image they project. although these vehicles look sturdy, they are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars. consequently, a high-impact collision involving both a passenger car and a sport-utility vehicle is much more likely to injure the latter and not the former.
each of the following serves to strengthen the conclusion above except
1. those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must
2. sport-utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision
3. the government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in all passenger cars
4. sport-utility vehicles are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate
5. people who drive sport-utility vehicles are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seatbelts
each of the following serves to strengthen the conclusion above except
1. those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must
2. sport-utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision
3. the government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in all passenger cars
4. sport-utility vehicles are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate
5. people who drive sport-utility vehicles are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seatbelts
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
5)
The premise is that SUV are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars.
The conclusion is that therefore, in a high-impact collision, SUV passengers are more likely to be injured.
5 says that the higher probability of SUV passengers be harmed may be due to some cause ( false sense of security ) other than SUVs' "non-compliance" to government standards. This may weaken the argument, or at least, not strenghten it by giving an alternative explanation.
4 does somewhat strenghten the argument. If SUVs are bulkier, then their manoeuverability can be reduced. Also, if the acceleration is hindered, then the ability to avoid such a collision (by quickly bifurcating elsewhere before the impact), may be hindered as well. Agree, that this is more inference but IMO, it could strenghten the argument more than 5 does.
1 is no good because it clearly strenghtens the argument by saying that because SUV car makers are not under the same safety standards, then they will no be inclined to make their cars safe ( they don't have to )
The premise is that SUV are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinarly passenger cars.
The conclusion is that therefore, in a high-impact collision, SUV passengers are more likely to be injured.
5 says that the higher probability of SUV passengers be harmed may be due to some cause ( false sense of security ) other than SUVs' "non-compliance" to government standards. This may weaken the argument, or at least, not strenghten it by giving an alternative explanation.
4 does somewhat strenghten the argument. If SUVs are bulkier, then their manoeuverability can be reduced. Also, if the acceleration is hindered, then the ability to avoid such a collision (by quickly bifurcating elsewhere before the impact), may be hindered as well. Agree, that this is more inference but IMO, it could strenghten the argument more than 5 does.
1 is no good because it clearly strenghtens the argument by saying that because SUV car makers are not under the same safety standards, then they will no be inclined to make their cars safe ( they don't have to )
). the answer is (d). explanation arrives:
). 
