Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design

Question

Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.

(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.

(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.

(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.

(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.

I don't understand how A is correct . A just means two passenger vehicles , what if a household owns two heavy vehicles ? Then how is the cost of fuel going to be less ?

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Problem: Companies wanted to make fuel efficient vehicles, but they were lighter and hence less safe on high speed highways. 
Plan: They made 2 types of vehicles: a light fuel efficient one for local use and a heavy safe one for long distance. 
Most automobile traffic is local.
Conclusion: net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety

The argument explains that there are two types of cars and most traffic is local so there is net savings in fuel without loss of safety.

Now, what if we find out that most households can afford only one car? Then our conclusion weakens. If that car is light (which is logical because most travel is local), safety on long drives is compromised. But if that car is heavy, there is no savings in fuel.

Option (A) tells us that most households with any long distance travel have at least 2 cars. So one could be light for local use and one could be heavy for long distance travel. If increases the probability that our conclusion stands. 
Again, please don't try to "establish" that the conclusion stands. We just need to improve the probability that it does (in a strengthen question).

Answer (A)

DexDee · Answer

Straight A!

A is the assumption of the argument. The "no loss in safety" can be realized only if the long distance travelers had heavier vehicles at their disposal. Only A gives us this possibility.

PrakharGMAT · Answer

Hi Experts / chetan2u / daagh / aditya8062 , Actually, I didn't find any option correct :roll:

Can you please explain, how could OA be A. Stimulus- the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: 1) a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and 2) a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel (A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles . How can we say 1 will be lighter and other will be heavier one. What if people have both heavier passenger vechile. Please assist

chetan2u · Answer

hi..
the para talks of two vehicles as mentioned by you :-

the conclusion is

we are talking of both fuel efficiency and safety..
this means
1) no light vehicle went on long routes, and
2) no heavy vehivles plied locally..

But what about families which had to do both..
they must be having two vehicles to ensure that teh correct vehicle is used in correct place..

FrozenRaccoon · Answer

Question Type : Strengthen 
 Question Action : Support Premise; Support Assumption; Add New Supportive Premise

Premise: Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma
Premise: In the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. 
Premise: However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: 
Premise: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, 
Premise: and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. 
-----------
Assumption: Most people have lighter cars (conclusion states net savings was achieved with no loss in safety)
Assumption: Some people have heavier cars (conclusion states most traffic is local, AND there is no loss in safety)
-----------
Conclusion: Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.

Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
 - Supports assumptions. Decent answer, let's check the others. After checking others, this 'ok' answer is the only one that supports the conclusion via assumptions.

(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.
 - Non-useful information. Argument doesn't discuss population or car numbers increasing or decreasing. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
 - Non-useful information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
 - Non-useful information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
-  Historical information. Out of scope. Doesn't support premises, assumptions or add new information that supports conclusion.

BillyZ · Answer

General Description : This question asks you to determine which response most strengthens the argument. In approaching such questions, you should identify the conclusion of the argument, and find the response that, if true, adds to the argument's support for its conclusion.

A.  Correct . The argument says that automobile manufacturers addressed the  trade-off  between  efficiency  and  safety  by designing two kinds of cars, a more efficient but less safe car for local travel, and a less efficient but safer car for long-distance travel. Further, the argument says that " most automobile traffic is local ," and then draws its conclusion that " a net savings in fuel use was achieved    with  no loss in safety ." The more people actually use cars in the way that leads to greatest efficiency and safety, the stronger the argument is: That is, to the extent that people actually use the more efficient cars for local travel and the safer cars for long-distance travel, the argument is stronger. Response (A) strengthens the argument by showing that it is at least possible that most people do use their cars in that way, and is the best answer.

B. Incorrect. At best, the increased number of cars using high-speed highways is essentially irrelevant to the argument.

C. Incorrect. Without further information, it is not clear how the truth of this statement would bear on the argument. According to the passage, lighter cars are more fuel-efficient, but less safe. From response (C) alone, we cannot tell to what extent its truth would affect the net relationship between safety and fuel efficiency.

D. Incorrect. The relationship of commercial vehicles to the situation described in the passage does not arise in the argument; thus this response is, without further information, irrelevant to the argument.

E. Incorrect. This response is at best irrelevant to the argument; exactly when automobile manufacturers began designing fuel-efficient cars is not at issue.

Difficulty Level: Relatively easy

Tips and Pitfalls : In answering a question asking for strengthening evidence, be careful not to read more into a response statement than is actually there. A statement that could strengthen the argument, if other (unstated) facts obtain, is not as good an answer as a statement that strengthens the argument on its own.

AJ2606 · Answer

While selecting option A - you assume that at least 2 vehicles are in reality 2 different types of vehicle: local use and high-speed use. 
It took me time to select this option, but I ended up selecting this because the other 4 options were terrible. They are more irrelevant.

Avinash_g · Answer

My Assumption: The option A is not clearly saying if it was before two decades ago or currently. because if it is referring to current, then it is weakening the statement that people are owning two vehicles from the automobile manufacturer. if was two decades ago it justifies the answer A.

bpn303 · Answer

Could you please explain why option C is not correct? I am struck between A & C

Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design

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

Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design

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