Events & Promotions
|
|
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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
02 Sep 2011, 06:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
91% (01:31) correct
9%
(01:46)
wrong
based on 1286
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Traffic Safety Expert: In order to achieve a substantial reduction in the extremely high number of car accidents in our country, we should implement a radical new safe driving plan. Seat belts and air bags would be eliminated from the driver's side of all automobiles to provide the driver with the strongest possible incentive to drive safely. Further, an electroshock system would administer shocks to the driver if he or she exceeds the speed limit or engages in other unsafe driving practices.
In declaring that the radical new safe driving plan will help to reduce accident rates, the author assumes which of the following?
(A) Many car accidents are caused, at least partially, by naturally occurring conditions such as rain and fog.
(B) Accidents in which one or both participants exceed 60 miles per hour account for a majority of all fatal car accidents.
(C) A significant number of accidents are the result of negligence or other unsafe driving practices on the part of the driver.
(D) To alleviate safety concerns, citizens should be allowed to reinstall their drivers' side seat belts and air bags at their own expense.
(E) If not implemented properly, electroshock systems can cause heart attacks and other health problems.
Source: MGMAT 4th Edition
In declaring that the radical new safe driving plan will help to reduce accident rates, the author assumes which of the following?
(A) Many car accidents are caused, at least partially, by naturally occurring conditions such as rain and fog.
(B) Accidents in which one or both participants exceed 60 miles per hour account for a majority of all fatal car accidents.
(C) A significant number of accidents are the result of negligence or other unsafe driving practices on the part of the driver.
(D) To alleviate safety concerns, citizens should be allowed to reinstall their drivers' side seat belts and air bags at their own expense.
(E) If not implemented properly, electroshock systems can cause heart attacks and other health problems.
Source: MGMAT 4th Edition
03 Sep 2011, 03:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO C. Reasons:
The passage suggests that to reduce accidents, all the necessary radical steps should be taken w.r.t. driver's alertness on the road. Hence, the assumption that the expert draws is that accidents are caused because of negligence on driver's part.
The passage suggests that to reduce accidents, all the necessary radical steps should be taken w.r.t. driver's alertness on the road. Hence, the assumption that the expert draws is that accidents are caused because of negligence on driver's part.
bholakc
10 Sep 2011, 12:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Another, good question to use to practice focusing on the exact scope of the conclusion as given (rather than information we know from the real world).
The traffic expert’s argument can be summed up as follows:
Radical incentives to encourage safe driving (no seat belts, electroshocks for speeding)->Substantially reduced # of car accidents
This is an assumption question, and you might have recognized right away that there is a logical gap between the language used in the GOAL (reduced ACCIDENTS) and the premises (incentives for SAFE DRIVING)…we might think, based on our own preexisting assumptions, that unsafe driving is always linked to accidents, but that’s not necessarily true.
Even if we didn’t recognize that gap, we can still focus very specifically on the wording of the conclusion to get us there.
(A) If many accidents are caused by things OTHER than safe-driving, this would weaken the conclusion, not help support it. Eliminate.
(B) There’s a little word inserted here that’s crucial—“all fatal car accidents.” We’ve shifted the scope from “the number of car accidents” to “fatal car accidents”—these are not comparable groups. Little words, especially near the ends of sentences, can be super important on the GMAT. Eliminate.
(C) The phrase “significant number” is helpful here, since we want to “substantially” decrease the number of accidents. This answer choice also links the accidents to the unsafe practices addressed by the crazy incentives. Hold onto it, but keep going.
(D) What someone “should” or “should not” do is a moral claim, and this choice is therefore out of scope. We want to help prove a factual claim (incentives->reduced accidents). Pay attention to those little words! Eliminate.
(E) We don’t know whether the electroshock systems would be implemented properly. And even if they weren’t, the fact that they could cause heart attacks would probably lead to more accidents, not fewer.
C is the only choice that directly links the language of the conclusion with the language of the premises, so it’s our keeper.
The traffic expert’s argument can be summed up as follows:
Radical incentives to encourage safe driving (no seat belts, electroshocks for speeding)->Substantially reduced # of car accidents
This is an assumption question, and you might have recognized right away that there is a logical gap between the language used in the GOAL (reduced ACCIDENTS) and the premises (incentives for SAFE DRIVING)…we might think, based on our own preexisting assumptions, that unsafe driving is always linked to accidents, but that’s not necessarily true.
Even if we didn’t recognize that gap, we can still focus very specifically on the wording of the conclusion to get us there.
(A) If many accidents are caused by things OTHER than safe-driving, this would weaken the conclusion, not help support it. Eliminate.
(B) There’s a little word inserted here that’s crucial—“all fatal car accidents.” We’ve shifted the scope from “the number of car accidents” to “fatal car accidents”—these are not comparable groups. Little words, especially near the ends of sentences, can be super important on the GMAT. Eliminate.
(C) The phrase “significant number” is helpful here, since we want to “substantially” decrease the number of accidents. This answer choice also links the accidents to the unsafe practices addressed by the crazy incentives. Hold onto it, but keep going.
(D) What someone “should” or “should not” do is a moral claim, and this choice is therefore out of scope. We want to help prove a factual claim (incentives->reduced accidents). Pay attention to those little words! Eliminate.
(E) We don’t know whether the electroshock systems would be implemented properly. And even if they weren’t, the fact that they could cause heart attacks would probably lead to more accidents, not fewer.
C is the only choice that directly links the language of the conclusion with the language of the premises, so it’s our keeper.
