Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology

Question

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology for improving the safety of drivers on the road. In a recent study conducted by the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI), the researchers found that individuals driving the Volvo XC60—a specific model equipped with CAT—reported 27 percent fewer auto insurance claims than did drivers of comparable vehicles. In spite of this, the research concluded that CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.

Which of the following most helps to explain the above situation?

A. Since Volvo XC60 is one of the most expensive models in the market, the propensity of an XC60 owner to make an insurance claim is generally higher than the average propensity of other car owners.
B. A car needs to make specific space arrangement for fitting in the CAT equipment, an arrangement that some car makers currently do not make in their cars.
C. Many drivers will see the enhanced safety of the car as a reason to drive more recklessly.
D. There are other technologies currently in the market that also improve the safety of the drivers, but none of them has been successful.
E. The research conducted by HDLI was carried out for only a few months against an earlier budgeted time of two years.

Skywalker18 · Accepted Answer

Official explanation 
Pre-thinking

Conclusion Clarification
The research concluded that despite the relatively fewer auto insurance claims reported by individuals driving the vehicle having CAT, CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.
Pre-Thinking Approach
To resolve the paradox, let’s see how we can select a scenario in which both situations can be true without contradicting each other. To do so, we will look at the logical structure, focusing on the seemingly contradictory situations.
• Potential explanations
• Instance 1: What if there is some other factor related to CAT that leads to increased accidents? In such a case, it’s possible that despite the safety provided by CAT, the overall accidents won’t come down significantly.
 For example: What if the improved safety of the cars makes drivers take the safety measures for granted? The very fact that they are safer because of CAT can make them negligent while driving, increasing the risk of accident. Thus, such a scenario may explain why CAT is not expected to bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run. 
Answer Choices

Choice A
• Incorrect - Doesn’t explain the situation
o We know that individuals driving XC60 had made fewer claims. 
o If their tendency to make claims is high but they still made lower claims, then it could mean that CAT worked very well in avoiding accidents. 
o Then, the conclusion that it won’t bring down accidents in the long term becomes even more puzzling.
Choice B
• Incorrect - Doesn’t explain the situation
o Even if some car makers don’t make such arrangements, there might be others who do so and thus CAT can still bring down auto accidents significantly if the proportion of those who make this arrangement is high. 
o Also, this statement talks about only the current situation whereas the conclusion of the research talks about the long run. A current impediment can’t be taken as a definite problem in the long term.
Choice C
• Correct
o This option is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per instance1. If many drivers drive carelessly because of the enhanced safety available in the form of CAT, it may give rise to more auto accidents.
o There are other technologies currently in the market that also improve the safety of the drivers, but none of them has been successful.
Choice D
• Incorrect - Doesn’t explain the situation
o The fact that none of the other technologies that improve the safety of the drivers have been successful doesn’t explain why CAT in particular will not have a certain effect, i.e. bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.

Choice E
• Incorrect- Doesn’t explain the situation
o This option tells us that research was carried out for a shorter time than estimated. However, we can’t derive whether it’s good or bad that the research was conducted for a shorter time than estimated. The duration of the research is not related to the impact of CAT on the rate of accident.

Archit3110 · Answer

conclusion ; 
the research concluded that CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.
answer option will be the one which has an alternate reason why CAT wont be successful.
IMO C; 
it provides a reason that installaton of CAT in cars would make driver drive recklessly and cause accidents..

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology for improving the safety of drivers on the road. In a recent study conducted by the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI), the researchers found that individuals driving the Volvo XC60—a specific model equipped with CAT—reported 27 percent fewer auto insurance claims than did drivers of comparable vehicles. In spite of this, the research concluded that CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.

Which of the following most helps to explain the above situation?

A. Since Volvo XC60 is one of the most expensive models in the market, the propensity of an XC60 owner to make an insurance claim is generally higher than the average propensity of other car owners.
B. A car needs to make specific space arrangement for fitting in the CAT equipment, an arrangement that some car makers currently do not make in their cars.
C. Many drivers will see the enhanced safety of the car as a reason to drive more recklessly.
D. There are other technologies currently in the market that also improve the safety of the drivers, but none of them has been successful.
E. The research conducted by HDLI was carried out for only a few months against an earlier budgeted time of two years.

ruchik · Answer

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology for improving the safety of drivers on the road. In a recent study conducted by the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI), the researchers found that individuals driving the Volvo XC60—a specific model equipped with CAT—reported 27 percent fewer auto insurance claims than did drivers of comparable vehicles. In spite of this, the research concluded that CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.

Which of the following most helps to explain the above situation?

A. Since Volvo XC60 is one of the most expensive models in the market, the propensity of an XC60 owner to make an insurance claim is generally higher than the average propensity of other car owners. - Incorrect it actually strengthens the conclusion that cat systems should be successful. 
B. A car needs to make specific space arrangement for fitting in the CAT equipment, an arrangement that some car makers currently do not make in their cars. - Incorrect The option talks about some cars. Hence cannot be generalized to analyze its impact.
C. Many drivers will see the enhanced safety of the car as a reason to drive more recklessly. - Correct. This may lead to more accidents. Hence number of accidents might not come down.
D. There are other technologies currently in the market that also improve the safety of the drivers, but none of them has been successful. - Incorrect - Irrelevant choice. No impact on the argument.
E. The research conducted by HDLI was carried out for only a few months against an earlier budgeted time of two years. - Incorrect - Irrelevant choice. No impact on the argument.

dcummins · Answer

Bit of a weirdly worded question that is missing articles such as "the".

The argument is that the CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.
This is based on the evidence of a recent study conducted by HDLI that found volvo xc60 drivers, a model equipped with the CAT, reported 27% fewer insurance claims than did drivers of comparable vehicles.

We need to evaluate the argument. The conditions of our answer must include a situation where the CAT exists in order for the effect to actually be a reality.

A  weakens the argument actually. If the XC60 drivers make the highest # claims then other drivers make the lowest number of claims, so their claims would also be reduced and potentially this reduction would make more of a percentage change difference to overall claims.
 B  - doesn't allow for a situation in which the CAT exists. If the CAT won't exist it obviously wont have its intended effect. The situation we want is one in which the CAT exists but it may not have its intended effect.
 C  - this is spot on. It allows both premise and conclusion to exist. Substitute C into the question:

Many drivers will see the enhanced safety of the car as a reason to drive more recklessly; therefore, the CAT is not expected to significantly bring down the rates of auto accidents in the long run.

D  - The argument isn't concerned with other technologies, it's concerned with CAT.
 E  - doesn't matter. Maybe HDLI was extremely efficient? Maybe they received the responses they needed in a shorter period of time than was previously budgeted? Heaps of reasons why this AC is incorrect.

JonShukhrat · Answer

PARADOX: During the research the CAT proved that it is helpful in decreasing the number of the insurance claims. However, researchers concluded that the CAT will not decrease the RATES of auto accidents IN THE LONG RUN.  Why?  (Key words are important)

A talks about the increase in the number of insurance claims. We are interested in what may happen before the accident (will it happen or not), not after the accident. Thus OUT.

B says that not all cars are going to have the CAT currently. Two objections to B: 1. we are interested in what would happen if the CAT is already set up in the car, not in cars without the CAT. 2. the stimulus says ‘in the long run’, not ‘currently ‘. OUT

D. We are considering the capability of the CAT, not other technologies. OUT

E. The fact that research was conducted only two months instead of 24 doesn’t disprove its authenticity.

C. Bingo! Overconfidence may make drivers prone to reckless drive. 83 % of a greater number is greater than the similar % of a smaller number.

Hence  C

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology

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

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology

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