Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at sp

Question

Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at speeds greater than the posted speed limit if houses or buildings are in some way visible from the road. Assuming similar car, road and traffic conditions, highway drivers are more likely to drive at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit if the natural surroundings are not interrupted by buildings. Psychologists hypothesize that seeing signs of civilization reminds drivers of their responsibility to the safety of their fellow humans, thus making them more likely to obey the posted speed limit.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the study?

A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars that can drive well in excess of any speed limit.

B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild flowers.

C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities.

D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a town with or without tall buildings.

E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these locations

ElninoEffect · Answer

So psychologists again haan and we have to support them too. Great.! (create more studies, print more books make the curriculam even more worse. Gosh.!) A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars that can drive well in excess of any speed limit. Were we going for car shopping.? B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild flowers. I always knew wilderness brings out the wild side of the people.

|This is supporting psychologists how.? plowed and cultivated field: civilization (bring out the caring side, low speed.) wildflowers(go wild go crazy,go fast.) C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities. So.? Irrelevant. D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a town with or without tall buildings. We need to be diplomatic here, so small towns (no tall buildings) or big towns(tall buildings) we need to show we care equally. Morality you know but the comparison was not between them, it was between the effect of civilization and wilderness on speed limits of vehicles. E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these locations So the reason was not out of care but out of fear.? If I had to go against the psychologists, I would have loved to be with you but not today maybe in another life.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Explanation

The credited answer is (B). If signs of civilization make highway drivers more likely to obey the speed limit, then (B) provides further. A plowed field, unlike a field of wild flowers is evidence of civilization, and if also this causes drivers to obey the speed limit, that's independent confirmation for the psychologist argument, a good strengthener.

The argument explicitly says it is equalizing for car & road & traffic conditions, so that nullifies choices (A) & (C).

Choice (D) cites the heights of buildings, which is irrelevant, not cited in the argument and not pertinent to its logic.

Choice (E) is a weakener: if obeying the speed around towns has to do with traffic cops, then that's an alternative explanation for the evidence, which takes away credibility from the psychologist explanation.

rajshreeasati · Answer

P = See houses + humans => Speed limit followed
P - Dont see houses, humans => Speed limit not followed, exceeded
C = Cause - see humans , effect = Speed limit followed
Pre thinking - No other reason for lower speed limit in areas with humans

A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars that can drive well in excess of any speed limit. = Cars with more speed? but we said in premise, car is same - Distortion, thus incorrect.

B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild flowers. = Plowed field = Humans present = Obey speed. Wild Flowers = no humans = Dont obey speed

C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities. = Actually a weakner, which says becuase of traffic the speed gets lowered. Incorrect.

D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a town with or without tall buildings. - With/without tall buildings? again a weakner of some sort saying that they dont care about humans, or humans dont matter at all! Incorrect!

E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these locations = Weakner again! if police is there in humanly places, they would then follow speed limit because of that thing and not because of humans. Hence incorrect

gullyboy09 · Answer

How come D cannot be a strengthner? It is removing the alternate reason of fear of tall buildings because of which drivers were slowing down. IMO both D and B are correct.

Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at speeds greater than the posted speed limit if houses or buildings are in some way visible from the road. Assuming similar car, road and traffic conditions, highway drivers are more likely to drive at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit if the natural surroundings are not interrupted by buildings. Psychologists hypothesize that seeing signs of civilization reminds drivers of their responsibility to the safety of their fellow humans, thus making them more likely to obey the posted speed limit.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the study?

A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars that can drive well in excess of any speed limit.

B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild flowers.

C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities.

D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a town with or without tall buildings.

E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these locations

AbhishekP220108 · Answer

Hi  gullyboy09  let me try to help

Well I also got confused in B and D; however, as per the argument, the comparison is between civilization or no civilization. When we look at D, it just states the comparison between Town A and B, which is only in terms of civilization, whereas B clearly represents the civilization or no civilization

Hope this helps

guddo · Answer

Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at speeds greater than the posted speed limit if houses or buildings are in some way visible from the road. Assuming similar car, road and traffic conditions, highway drivers are more likely to drive at speeds in excess of the posted speed limit if the natural surroundings are not interrupted by buildings. Psychologists hypothesize that seeing signs of civilization reminds drivers of their responsibility to the safety of their fellow humans, thus making them more likely to obey the posted speed limit.
 
 Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the psychologists’ interpretation of the study?

The psychologists think drivers slow down because signs of human presence make them more aware of other people’s safety.  The best support  would show that even a non-building sign of human presence has the same effect.

A. People who live in sparsely populated areas are more likely to buy cars that can drive well in excess of any speed limit.

Wrong. This is about what cars people buy, not about why drivers slow down when they see signs of civilization.

B. Highway drivers passing a large plowed and cultivated field are more likely to obey the speed limit than those passing large field of wild flowers.

Correct. A cultivated field is a sign of human activity, while a wildflower field is more purely natural. If drivers obey the speed limit more near the cultivated field, that supports the idea that signs of human presence make drivers more responsible.

C. Traffic tends to be more congested around towns and cities.

Wrong. This gives an alternate explanation: drivers may slow down because of traffic, not because they feel responsibility toward others.

D. Drivers are equally likely to obey the speed limit whether driving past a town with or without tall buildings.

Weak. Both cases involve a town, so both involve signs of civilization. This does not test the key contrast between  human presence and natural surroundings .

E. Highway police officers are more densely located close to towns and cities, and therefore most citations for speeding are issued in these locations.

Wrong. This gives another alternate explanation: drivers may slow down because they expect police nearby.

Answer: (B)

Rhitib · Answer

Option B is the answer because when it is plowed and cultivated field means some human population must be living or plowing the field. Wild flowers grow randomly. So it supports the psychologists view.

Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at sp

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

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Studies have shown that highway drivers are less likely to drive at sp

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

My Rewards