City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element

Question

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.
 
Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities

Skywalker18 · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation :
 
With this question, we're given a potential data flaw and being tasked to address it using one of the answer choices. If, structurally, the argument is as follows:
 
Premise: In states with parallel parking assessments, there is a significant portion of accidents caused by parallel parking
Premise: In states without the assessment, the number of these incidents is negligible
Conclusion: The assessment element is counterproductive and should be eliminated
 
The "gap" in logic consists of the assumption that we're looking at otherwise similar "data," and that the element plays a negative role in the anticipated number/percent of related accidents. However, whether or not this is valid hinges directly on how comparable the data is. What if there is not parallel parking element in states where an insignificant portion of the parking consisted of parallel parking, while in states with the element, parallel parking was abundant! If this is the case, the assessment could very well be necessary, and the data could be a result of the fact that a substantial portion of parking is done "parallel," - opening drivers to more of a risk of parallel parking related incidents. Whereas, if states without this portion of the exam also had a significant amount of parallel parking - they just might be on to something here! If the situations are parallel, and both express states with a notable level of parallel parking, but those with the exam element experience a more notable number of accidents resulting from this activity, perhaps we ought to remove this element after all! Answer choice (D) addresses this line of reasoning, as - if answered one way, the argument is likely flawed for the reasons expressed above, if answered the other way, it is very likely valid. None of the other answer choices pose a gap in thinking, or a potentially flawed assumption upon which the validity of the argument directly hinges.

ruchik · Answer

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element -  Incorrec  irrelevant to the argument

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision - Incorrect  if poor lighting was the reason, it would have impacted driver of both the states equally.

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park -  Incorrect . the difference between the two states is requirement of additional clause in examination. So in both states accident can occur during parallel parking.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking -   Correct   - if there is no parallel parking requirement it might lead to less accidents.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities -  Incorrect   We don't know the relative difference in parking accident reporting between two states.

prashanths · Answer

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Conclusion: we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision
Not quite relevant

(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park
It does not matter if the individual is different from the driver as long as the accidents are related to parallel parking.

(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking
Correct. If parallel parking is only negligible in states without the requirement, the accidents will also be lower. And this would weaken the argument. However, if parallel parking is a significant portion of parking in those states, then the argument is strengthened.

(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities
This statement is not specific to states with or without the parallel parking requirement. So, even in states where parallel parking is required for licensing exams, this statement would imply that the % is more than 7%. So not needed to evaluate the argument.

Answer should be D.

Posted from my mobile device

JonShukhrat · Answer

Note 1  : Evaluate the Argument questions ask us to select the question that best help determine the logical validity of the argument presented in the stimulus. Question stem examples: evaluate the argument / evaluate the line of reasoning / assess the hypothesis in the passage / judge the conclusion of the argument.

Note 2  : In this type questions the information in the stimulus is suspect, so we should search for the reasoning error present. Please note that we are not being asked to prove with finality whether the argument is good or bad – rather, we must simply ask the question that will best help analyze the argument’s validity.

Note 3  : The answer choices are accepted as given, even if they include “new” information.

Note 4  : We need to apply the Variance Test by supplying polar opposite responses to the question posed in the answer choice and then analyzing how the subsequent results affect the conclusion in the stimulus. If different responses produce different effects on the conclusion, then the answer choice is correct. If different responses do not produce different effects, then the answer choice is incorrect.

The above notes are from PowerScore CR Bible. Keeping them in mind, let’s analyze our question.

City official’s conclusion : Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking (PP) element of the test.

City official’s line of reasoning : ...because PP is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Evidence : States without PP have fewer PP related incidents than states with PP have.

As Note 2 says, we need to be suspicious of the stimulus and question it – Is it good or bad if we remove PP testing just because the official claims that it is counterproductive? Did he correctly draw his conclusion from the above evidence? What if he overlooked some nuances? As Note 1 says, the question in the correct answer choice will be similar to these ones. Let’s use the Variance Test to analyze official’s conclusion in the light of answer choices, as Note 4 says:

A.  Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element

This answer choice asks whether states without PP testing had such testing before. To apply the Variance Test, we should supply opposing answers to the question in A and see whether the conclusion is weakened or strengthened. First we say YES, these states before had such testing. Does this information strengthen or weaken the line of reasoning (PP is clearly counterproductive)? I think, No. Now let’s answer NO, these states didn’t have such testing. Once again, we cannot find out whether PP testing indeed counterproductive in line of this info. Hence, A should be incorrect. The application of the Variance Test to B, C, and E will also give similar results.

D.  Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking

Let’s first say YES and then NO to C and see whether official’s line of reasoning or conclusion is strengthened or weakened. 
Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? YES. If indeed many people use PP and still PP accidents are less common, then states without PP testing did a good job by removing such testing. Correspondingly, states with PP testing should get rid of such testing because it doesn’t prove to be productive. As we see, the conclusion is strengthened because official’s line of reasoning becomes valid.

Do many people use PP in states without PP testing? NO. Instead of PP many people use other type of parking. Now everything changes. If indeed few people use PP in states without PP testing, then accidents due to PP must be less common not because PP is counterproductive, but because only few people use PP. Thus official’s conclusion is weakened because his line of reasoning becomes invalid. Clearly, D help us evaluate official’s line of reasoning.

Hence  D

hiranmay · Answer

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element of driver licensing exams, the percent of accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%, whereas states without this requirement have a negligible number of parallel parking related incidents. Therefore, we should remove the parallel parking element of the test, as it is clearly counterproductive to driver safety.

Which of the following would best evaluate the line of reasoning used by the city official?

Analysis:
Cause --> effect
City-A: parallel parking in driving test ---> 7% accident related to parallel parking
City-B: no parallel parking in driving test ---> ~0 accident related to parallel parking
Conclusion by City Official: parallel parking should be removed from driving test in City-A
Which case it should not remove the parallel parking from driving test?
case-1: if two city's parkings aren't similar i.e city-B doesn't have many parallel parkings, but city-A has, then removing parallel parking from city-B's driving test might increase the parallel parking related accident
 
(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam previously contained such an element, but later removed the element --> we can't conclude from this that city-B should remove the parallel parking from driving test
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily during the evening, when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision --> this should be the case for both the cities
(C) Whether the driver at fault in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park --> this should be the case for both the cities
(D) Whether a significant portion of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is parallel parking -->  correct : matches w/ the analysis
(E) Whether all parallel parking-related accidents are reported to the authorities --> reporting to the authorities is not the concern

MayankSingh · Answer

IMO-D

States 
1)Where parallel parking is a  required  element of driver licensing exams- 
 Stats - Accidents resulting from improper parallel parking is nearly 7%

2)where parallel parking is  not required element  of driver licensing exams
 Stats - Negligible number of parallel parking related incidents

Conclusion (City Officials)- parallel parking element  of the test, as it is clearly  counterproductive  to driver safety--- So be removed

Reasoning  is based on--- Comparison between the two type of states and number of accidents.

Pre Thinking-  - What if state where parallel parking is  not required element  doesn't have significant portion of parking as parallel parking. in that cases no. of accidents reported in these will be lower & that will weaken the line of reasoning (comparison between the two states) used by official..

(A) Whether states without a parallel parking element of the exam  previously contained such an element,  but later removed the element---  Incorrect ---whether previously parallel parking element was present or not doesn't effect the line of reasoning. 
(B) Whether related accidents occur primarily  during the evening , when poor lighting might have obstructed the driver's vision--- Incorrect --- Time reference immaterial to conclusion.
(C) Whether the  driver at fault  in parallel parking-related accidents was the individual attempting to parallel park---  Incorrect- --- though a good choice, but not a part of reasoning as stated in prethinking.
(D) Whether a  significant portion  of the parking in states where there is not a parallel parking element of the exam is  parallel parking --  Correct- - Along the line of prethinking.
(E) Whether  all parallel parking-related  accidents are reported to the authorities---- Incorrect- --Not related to line of reasoning...same case can be for both states

TheUnicorn · Answer

Here the assumption in deriving the conclusion is that the non- requirement of parallel parking exam is the reason for negligible accidents in states where the exam is not necessary.

Even if this were true, at least some drivers would still be required to undergo the test and may result in some percentage of accidents.

This is irrelevant. Poor lighting can affect all the states.

This is irrelevant as well. Because, at least in some cases, the accident could happen due to improper parking.

Yes, if the significant portion of the parking in such states is not parallel parking, then the rate accidents would be negligible. Hence this is required to evaluate the reasoning.

This is irrelevant as well such cases could happen in both the types of states.

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.

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element

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

City official: In states where parallel parking is a required element

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