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).