It is currently 19 Feb 2018, 11:52

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 888
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2011, 01:15
22
KUDOS
103
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents are caused by aggressive driving. To help reduce the number of accidents and to promote traffic safety in general, insurance companies have begun to issue discounts to drivers who take defensive driving courses. Research shows that people who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident. Therefore, the insurance company’s plan should help reduce the number of accidents.

Assuming the statements above are true, which of the following can be inferred from them?

A. The majority of accidents are caused by drivers who possess insurance.
B. People who manage to consistently avoid car accidents are likely practicing defensive driving.
C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.
D. An individual who does not practice defensive driving is always more likely to get into a car accident than an individual who does practice defensive driving.
E. Discounts are the most effective way for insurance companies to promote defensive driving.
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Status: Joining Cranfield Sep 2014
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 65
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q50 V14
GMAT 2: 630 Q48 V29
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Verbal Section: CR : Confusion [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 17:46
mikemcgarry wrote:
navneet001 wrote:
Hi Experts,

I am just a beginner, so please pardon if I did not frame/format the question correctly.
I came across below question (attached the screenshot), please let me know if I should type it in:

The solution suggested is option C. I am confused on why Option D is not correct. It clearly says that the
‘Research shows that people who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident.

Is not option D stating exact the same ?

Dear navneet001,
I'm happy to help.

First of all, when you have a question about a specific question of a particular type, I would recommend posting it in the part of the forum devoted to that question type. For example, I believe this question would have been most appropriately posted in the Critical Reasoning section of the Verbal Forum.

In this question, (D) lays a trap, a very tempting trap, and I'm sorry to say, you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Many folks who have not studied statistics in depth would fall for this mistake. You see, let's think about the statement --- in the general population, quality A is correlated with quality B. As a overall, general rule, individuals with a higher degree of A (whatever that is) also have a higher degree of B. Correlations and related trends speak to something that is true in the population-wide view. BUT, we must keep in mind, correlation does not imply causality, so if we go down to the level of the individual, we can't say if person #1 has more A than person #2, then person #1 must also have more B. Correlations are about whole population trends and may not play out at the granular level.

For example, there's a well-measured correlation between height and salary --- tall people, on average, are somewhat more likely to have a high salary than short people. Nevertheless, it's trivially easy to find examples of individuals who are short & rich or tall & poor. The correlation only speak to a pattern that emerges when we have a "whole population" view, and this pattern may be weak or virtually indiscernible at the individual level.

That the problem with (D) ---- it takes the pattern that true as an overall population-wide trend and tries to concretize it at the level of one individual compared to another.

Does this make sense?
Mike

Hello Mike;

I do agree to some point on the justification you have given for choice D to be incorrect. But still the inference may be drawing from the argument, as chance (likelihood) of an accident is mote for an individual who does not practice defensive driving than an individual who does practice defensive driving. I got your point "People" should not be narrowed down to an "Individual", but still when we compare two individuals in above case the inference should work out, after all when we compare many individual then only it adds upto people.

Manager
Status: Joining Cranfield Sep 2014
Joined: 01 Sep 2012
Posts: 65
Concentration: Technology, General Management
GMAT 1: 530 Q50 V14
GMAT 2: 630 Q48 V29
WE: Engineering (Energy and Utilities)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Aug 2013, 18:01
GMATPill wrote:
gmatquant25 wrote:
GMAT PILL instructors - Could you please explain me how to tackle the question using your strategy ?

GMATQuant25,

It looks like you are a GMAT Pill student. Let's go ahead and tackle this with Framework #8 Inference. In the process, you'll see the concept from Framework #4 Negation play a role as well.

Framework #8 Inference

So you immediately you identify this question as an INFERENCE question. That means, do not be confused and take an answer choice and try to make it support the conclusion that is mentioned in the last line of the passage. That would be WRONG. If you did that, you're finding an ASSUMPTION -- not an INFERENCE.

So with inference questions, you take an answer choice -- and you ask why is that statement true? Is it true because... (then some detail in passage that might support THAT answer choice as being a valid conclusion --- as opposed to a valid assumption).

Let's look at (C)

C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.

Why would that be a valid conclusion? How do we know that...."guys and those who get into car accidents are LESS likely to practice defensive driving?

The reason is because...

Anything from passage to help us out? Well the passage doesn't talk about "young males". But it does have something about the types of people that get into car accidents. Well, it talks about those who get into FEWER accidents -- hmm that must be the negated version since the argument was about those who got into MORE accidents. Let's elaborate.

Now, negation is an important concept on GMAT CR. So immediately, you should think...can I use the negated example from the passage to support my claim?

So what is in the passage? Can it be said to be the "negated" form that would actually help support the claim?

Well, passage says those who DO practice are LESS likely to get into accidents.
So let's rewrite that:

Argument: Those in accidents a lot do not practice defensive driving
Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents

We know with Framework #4 Negation -- one method of supporting the argument is by showing the negation of that argument to be true. In this case, that's exactly what we do.

We take this basis (sourced from passage) and we negate it.
Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents
Negated Basis: DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents.

OK, does his negation support the argument?

Argument: Those in accidents A LOT do NOT practice defensive driving (answer choice C)
Negated Basis: Those who DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents.

Clearly we see the negated basis is SUPPORTING the argument now.

(C) says some group that gets into A LOT of accidents does not practice. In other words, these types of people do NOT practice and get into A LOT of accidents. This is exactly what our negated basis is helping us say.

Thus we managed to take information in the passage ("practice defensive driving =>less likely in accidents")
and use that to support our inferred statement (those who "DO NOT Practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents") by negating the basis found in the passage and observing how it SUPPORTS the claim made in answer choice (C).

With the above explanation can the choice D be ignored. I feel No. The above explanation further confirms that an individual who practices defensive driving should be less likely to get into accident when comparing to an individual who does not practice defensive driving.

Further I am having sentence structure confusion in Choice C. Young Male and other demographics ...... are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics. Now how other demographics is compared again to other demographics
Manager
Status: Time to wait :)
Joined: 18 Jun 2013
Posts: 79
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Consulting (Telecommunications)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2013, 12:38
GMATPill wrote:
gmatquant25 wrote:
GMAT PILL instructors - Could you please explain me how to tackle the question using your strategy ?

GMATQuant25,

It looks like you are a GMAT Pill student. Let's go ahead and tackle this with Framework #8 Inference. In the process, you'll see the concept from Framework #4 Negation play a role as well.

Framework #8 Inference

So you immediately you identify this question as an INFERENCE question. That means, do not be confused and take an answer choice and try to make it support the conclusion that is mentioned in the last line of the passage. That would be WRONG. If you did that, you're finding an ASSUMPTION -- not an INFERENCE.

So with inference questions, you take an answer choice -- and you ask why is that statement true? Is it true because... (then some detail in passage that might support THAT answer choice as being a valid conclusion --- as opposed to a valid assumption).

Let's look at (C)

C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.

Why would that be a valid conclusion? How do we know that...."guys and those who get into car accidents are LESS likely to practice defensive driving?

The reason is because...

Anything from passage to help us out? Well the passage doesn't talk about "young males". But it does have something about the types of people that get into car accidents. Well, it talks about those who get into FEWER accidents -- hmm that must be the negated version since the argument was about those who got into MORE accidents. Let's elaborate.

Now, negation is an important concept on GMAT CR. So immediately, you should think...can I use the negated example from the passage to support my claim?

So what is in the passage? Can it be said to be the "negated" form that would actually help support the claim?

Well, passage says those who DO practice are LESS likely to get into accidents.
So let's rewrite that:

Argument: Those in accidents a lot do not practice defensive driving
Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents

We know with Framework #4 Negation -- one method of supporting the argument is by showing the negation of that argument to be true. In this case, that's exactly what we do.

We take this basis (sourced from passage) and we negate it.
Basis: DO Practice defensive driving => LESS likely in accidents
Negated Basis: DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents.

OK, does his negation support the argument?

Argument: Those in accidents A LOT do NOT practice defensive driving (answer choice C)
Negated Basis: Those who DO NOT practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents.

Clearly we see the negated basis is SUPPORTING the argument now.

(C) says some group that gets into A LOT of accidents does not practice. In other words, these types of people do NOT practice and get into A LOT of accidents. This is exactly what our negated basis is helping us say.

Thus we managed to take information in the passage ("practice defensive driving =>less likely in accidents")
and use that to support our inferred statement (those who "DO NOT Practice defensive driving => MORE likely in accidents") by negating the basis found in the passage and observing how it SUPPORTS the claim made in answer choice (C).

That's a S-U-P-E-R-B explanation! Kudos, the reasoning makes it very clear to understand now.

Any particular strategy that anyone could suggest, for answering these type of questions? Thanks!
_________________

Dream On...

Intern
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Posts: 5
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Feb 2014, 11:23
ChrisLele wrote:

Let’s first look at answer choice (B) and why it is incorrect:

Essentially, this answer choice is saying that people who practice defensive driving are likely to avoid accidents. However, those who in general avoid accidents could be doing so for a variety of reasons, i.e. defensive driving isn’t the only way to avoid accidents. (You can think of those who avoid accidents as a large circle or which defensive drivers are only a small circle within this large circle).

So let’s say 90% of people who avoid accidents do so because of something besides defensive driving (e.g. they get their brakes tested). If this is the case, then (B) is invalidated, because the people who are consistently avoiding accidents are not necessarily practicing defensive driving.

As for answer (C), though it may seem “out of scope” because it mentions demographics not found in the prompt, inference questions can pertain to information outside the passage. As long as the statement can be inferred based on the information in the passage.

In this case, “those who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident” does not include young male/other demographics. This group, based on the information in the passage, is likely to get into a car accident. Therefore, young males/others are less likely to practice defensive driving.

I still don't quite understand your explanation of why young demographics in particular will not participate in learning defensive driving skill. The passage says people practicing this skill will most likely not get in an accident. This does not have anything to do with young males not participating in a course because we don't know what demographic group in particular has the highest rates in accidents.

For the sake of argument we can say the young people are the highest in accidental rates then we still don't know anything about their willingness to participate or not. The passage does not mention anything about this information either. In the real world, people are selfish and will take the course just to get the coupon but may not practice especially young people. This logically makes sense. But it will be out of scope and not inference.
Manager
Joined: 10 Mar 2014
Posts: 236
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Aug 2014, 07:57
mikemcgarry wrote:
navneet001 wrote:
Hi Experts,

I am just a beginner, so please pardon if I did not frame/format the question correctly.
I came across below question (attached the screenshot), please let me know if I should type it in:

The solution suggested is option C. I am confused on why Option D is not correct. It clearly says that the
‘Research shows that people who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident.

Is not option D stating exact the same ?

Dear navneet001,
I'm happy to help.

First of all, when you have a question about a specific question of a particular type, I would recommend posting it in the part of the forum devoted to that question type. For example, I believe this question would have been most appropriately posted in the Critical Reasoning section of the Verbal Forum.

In this question, (D) lays a trap, a very tempting trap, and I'm sorry to say, you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Many folks who have not studied statistics in depth would fall for this mistake. You see, let's think about the statement --- in the general population, quality A is correlated with quality B. As a overall, general rule, individuals with a higher degree of A (whatever that is) also have a higher degree of B. Correlations and related trends speak to something that is true in the population-wide view. BUT, we must keep in mind, correlation does not imply causality, so if we go down to the level of the individual, we can't say if person #1 has more A than person #2, then person #1 must also have more B. Correlations are about whole population trends and may not play out at the granular level.

For example, there's a well-measured correlation between height and salary --- tall people, on average, are somewhat more likely to have a high salary than short people. Nevertheless, it's trivially easy to find examples of individuals who are short & rich or tall & poor. The correlation only speak to a pattern that emerges when we have a "whole population" view, and this pattern may be weak or virtually indiscernible at the individual level.

That the problem with (D) ---- it takes the pattern that true as an overall population-wide trend and tries to concretize it at the level of one individual compared to another.

Does this make sense?
Mike

HI Mike,

I have one query.

Thanks.
Intern
Joined: 03 Apr 2015
Posts: 6
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 May 2015, 10:17
Still no fully clear why D is wrong.

"An individual who does not practice defensive driving is ALWAYS more likely to get into a car accident than an individual who does practice defensive driving."

Is wrong because of the ALWAYS? I dont know if my reasoning is correct, but for example, you have a farmer who only drives in his farm and is extremely agressive, and on the other hand you have a young guy who drives in an extremely defensive manner, but he drives a cab in manhattan. I can say that in this case the agressive driver is less likely to have an accident that the defensive driver.

Without the ALWAYS it would be RIGHT?

This doesnt make sense to me: MIKEMCGARRY said "For example, there's a well-measured correlation between height and salary --- tall people, on average, are somewhat more likely to have a high salary than short people. Nevertheless, it's trivially easy to find examples of individuals who are short & rich or tall & poor."

So replacing option D (WITHOUT ALWAYS), An individual who is TALL is more likely to have a HIGH SALARY than an individual who is NOT TALL". This is absolutely true. If you pick from a sample a given individual who is TALL, its definetely more likely that he would have a high salary based on what MCGARRY said. So again, is the always the only word that is wrong?
Retired Moderator
Status: I Declare War!!!
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 254
Location: United States
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT Date: 03-18-2015
WE: Asset Management (Investment Banking)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 May 2015, 13:10
Hi Experts!
Specially a request to egmat experts... kindly explain this question.
is this type of question similar to official one?
as in one of the post, an expert wrote that for inference we can go for additional info...

" As for answer (C), though it may seem “out of scope” because it mentions demographics not found in the prompt, inference questions can pertain to information outside the passage. As long as the statement can be inferred based on the information in the passage. "

kindly let me know about it and is it valid for inference to look for additional info
thanks
celestial
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 56
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2015, 10:30
This is very debatable question and only the author of it knows exactly what he meant and the desired correct answer based on his/her assumptions, but we dont know those assumptuoins.
After reading the POwer Score Bible, it says it have to pass teh FACT TEST. I doubt if C passes this test. Again how we can inferr that young ppl are bad and wont take defensive driving courses, how we can infer that, in addition inference question can not take outside info not given in the premises. clearly the dompgraphic group is new info .
D could be perfect answer had not been threre "ALWAYS" need to avoid hard words in inference.

I agree with gmatpill instructor on all lines , but we can not put new info in the correct answer.

BOttom line this might be a bad question
Manager
Joined: 07 Feb 2015
Posts: 50
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 May 2015, 23:22
The majority of accidents are caused by drivers who possess insurance. - If we negate this assumption wont the conclusion fall apart ?
_________________

Kudos if it helped you in any way

Retired Moderator
Joined: 23 Sep 2015
Posts: 401
Location: France
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V38
GMAT 2: 700 Q48 V38
WE: Real Estate (Mutual Funds and Brokerage)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Apr 2016, 13:42
kzivrev wrote:
This is very debatable question and only the author of it knows exactly what he meant and the desired correct answer based on his/her assumptions, but we dont know those assumptuoins.
After reading the POwer Score Bible, it says it have to pass teh FACT TEST. I doubt if C passes this test. Again how we can inferr that young ppl are bad and wont take defensive driving courses, how we can infer that, in addition inference question can not take outside info not given in the premises. clearly the dompgraphic group is new info .
D could be perfect answer had not been threre "ALWAYS" need to avoid hard words in inference.

I agree with gmatpill instructor on all lines , but we can not put new info in the correct answer.

BOttom line this might be a bad question

Agree, according to powerscore it can't be the answer. It was actually the first choice I discarded. Poor question
_________________

New Application Tracker : update your school profiles instantly!

Intern
Joined: 15 Nov 2015
Posts: 47
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Apr 2016, 12:16
1
KUDOS
The argument says:

Premise :
if aggressive driving, then more chance of an accident happening. AD--> AH, c ontrapositive A~H--> ~AD
if defensive driving , then less chance of an accident happening. DD--> A ~H , contrapositive : A H --> ~DD

Conclusion: if more people are defensive drivers, then less accident.

A. Out of scope. Out
B. People who avoid accidents are more likely to be driving defensively. Looks likes they are reversing the logic. A~H --> DD. Out.

C. Young people & some other demographics who constitute a majority of those involved in accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving.

Now , young people& some other demographics are a subset of those involved in accidents.
that implies, if YP, then AH
YP--> AH

Using syllogism, AH--> ~DD(from Premise), YP-->AH(from C) therefore YP--> ~DD. Yes!

D. Division Fallacy. Assuming what applies to the group applies to an individual. Out.
E. Out of scope. Out
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 330
Location: United States
WE: Engineering (Consulting)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2016, 18:55
1
KUDOS
C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.

They word with Young male, just as a trap, to make people think this is out-of scope. But read it , Young male and other demographics, which includes all basically.
So rewording, People known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2014
Posts: 56
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Sep 2016, 21:50
Senthil1981 wrote:
C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.

They word with Young male, just as a trap, to make people think this is out-of scope. But read it , Young male and other demographics, which includes all basically.
So rewording, People known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.

I agree with your reasoning it does make lots of sense, but I dont think I will do that kind of reasoning.

In additon to your post I would like to add something more that I found in powerscore i think.

casual statement if taken as true which is X causes Y , the only correct inference from that statement is --- if there is NOT Y present( no effect) than that means that X didnt happend ( no cause present) . and that will take us to answer choice C , if there are many accidents (which is no effect, remmeber the effect was no accident) than that means there is NO CAUSE( which is defence driving), so NO defense driving happned.

It took me a long time to get to this answer, under test condition I dont think I would make through, I would have taken the bite with D
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1905
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2017, 14:31
so, this question does not have to do with any premise, or conclusion, but the statements and inferences.

I wonder if any inference question in CR is same to this one?
SVP
Joined: 12 Dec 2016
Posts: 1905
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V33
GPA: 3.64
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2017, 14:43
so, this question does not have to do with any premise, or conclusion, but the statements and inferences.

I wonder if any inference question in CR is same to this one?
Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2017
Posts: 48
GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.67
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2017, 23:09
Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents are caused by aggressive driving. To help reduce the number of accidents and to promote traffic safety in general, insurance companies have begun to issue discounts to drivers who take defensive driving courses. Research shows that people who practice defensive driving are considerably less likely to get into a car accident. Therefore, the insurance company’s plan should help reduce the number of accidents.

Assuming the statements above are true, which of the following can be inferred from them?

A. The majority of accidents are caused by drivers who possess insurance.
B. People who manage to consistently avoid car accidents are likely practicing defensive driving.
C. Young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are less likely to practice defensive driving than other demographics.
D. An individual who does not practice defensive driving is always more likely to get into a car accident than an individual who does practice defensive driving.
E. Discounts are the most effective way for insurance companies to promote defensive driving.

This was my take on C.

IF young males and other demographics known for disproportionately being involved in car accidents are LIKELY to practice defensive driving than others, then the argument falls apart.
Intern
Joined: 03 Nov 2016
Posts: 19
GMAT 1: 620 Q47 V30
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2017, 12:45
For Conditional Statements : A --> B
The correct answer choice will be one of the two forms: A --> B (Repeat or restatement) or No B --> No A
Trap Ans choices can be: Out of scope or No A --> No B or B --> A
In this CR statement, the conditional statement is People who practice defense driving (=A) are less likely to get into a car accident (=B). Option C restates the same.
Intern
Joined: 07 Dec 2016
Posts: 45
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2017, 18:46
My understanding of contrapositive (someone correct me if I'm wrong)

Statement --> If p, then q.
Converse --> If q, then p.
Inverse --> If not p, then not q.
Contrapositive --> If not q, then not p.
_________________

Cheers!
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1130
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Re: Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Apr 2017, 19:26
IMO D
Why C is the correct answer ?
_________________

We are more often frightened than hurt; and we suffer more from imagination than from reality

Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2012
Posts: 179
Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 May 2017, 22:26
My 2 cents:
This is how i interpret this question:
Attachment:

001.jpg [ 959.64 KiB | Viewed 520 times ]

WE CAN ONLY CONSIDER CONTRAPOSITIVE AS CORRECT NOT INVERSE AND CONVERSE STATEMENTS.

Studies have shown that a large percentage of car accidents   [#permalink] 12 May 2017, 22:26

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 45 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by