Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have

Question

Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering. Previously, most cars in Morodia were without these features. Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place. But even though in 1966 one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars, the number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline.

Which of the following, if true about Morodia, most helps to explain why the number of collisions and collision-related injuries in Morodia failed to decline in 1966?

(A) Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966.

(B) Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February.

(C) In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars.

(D) An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before.

(E) The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.

Squib17 · Accepted Answer

A very straightforward question -

Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering. Previously, most cars in Morodia were without these features. Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place. But even though in 1966 one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars, the number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline.

We need to find out, why even after replacement of old cars with new ones, the number of car collisions and injuries did not decline.

Prethinking - This could be because of various reasons like - the safety features are not correctly installed, people are taking these safety features for granted and driving rashly or some other factor not taken into account because of which accidents could still happen...

Which of the following, if true about Morodia, most helps to explain why the number of collisions and collision-related injuries in Morodia failed to decline in 1966?

A. Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966.
 if they used the safety belts, then the accidents should have been less, but it is not! This statement does not provide us with the answer why not??!! ]

B. Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February.
 We are not interested in knowing when they were bought - eliminated ]

C. In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars.
 Did the cars replaced in 1965 have safety features? We don't know that. Also, we are interested in knowing what happened in 1966, so we can eliminate this option. ]

D. An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before.
 Now this matches with the pre-thinking! The people relied so much on the new safety, that drove less cautiously and hence were involved in collisions ]

E. The seatbelts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.
 Even if they were manufactured somewhere else, does that help us in answering why the accidents did not decrease? Nah! it doesn't, thus we can eliminate this option too! ]

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

PREMISE: In 1966, safety belts (SB) and power steering (PS) required in new cars
PREMISE: Previously, most cars didn't have SB and PS
PREMISE: In 1966, 1/7 of old cars were replaced with new cars (with SB and PS) 
CONCLUSION: In 1966, no reduction in Collisions and collision related injuries

PARADOX:  Increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries

Let's check the answer choices while also reminding ourselves what the  paradox  is...

A) Does this explain why the  increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries ?
NO.
In fact this makes the paradox even more confusing since having more people use seat belts should have resulted in fewer injuries.
ELIMINATE A

B) Does this explain why the  increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries ?
NO.
IF it had been the case that most of the new cars were bought at the END of 1996, then it is conceivable that there would have been little change to the number of accidents and injuries. However, statement B says the opposite; it says that these new cars were around for pretty much the entire year. As such, these new and safer cars should have helped reduce the collisions and injuries.
ELIMINATE B

C) Does this explain why the  increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries ?
NO.
We're told that most cars made before 1966 did not have good safety features. So it makes no difference how many cars were sold in 1965
ELIMINATE C

D) Does this explain why the  increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries ?
YES!!
The new safety features made the owners drive more recklessly. THIS is why the new features did not reduce collisions and injuries
KEEP D

E) Does this explain why the  increase in number of safer cars did NOT result in fewer collisions and injuries ?
NO.
The fact of the matter is that the cars sold in 1966 had better safety features.
ELIMINATE E

Answer: E

GyMrAT · Answer

Question Type: Resolve the Paradox

Premise 1: New cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering, since Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place. Prior to 1966, most cars in Morodia were without these features.

Premise 2: The number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline, even after replacing 1/7th of the old cars with new cars.

Analysis: We need to find an answer which provides additional information for the reason for no decline in occurrence of collisions & collision-related injuries. Either the answer should provide stats on # of cars with safety belts, etc. or should site another safety risk, not covered by seat belts.

A. Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966. -  Its a fact that is stated, but it doesn't help resolve the the paradox. Incorrect 
 B. Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February. -  Out of scope. Incorrect. 
 C. In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars. -  In 1965, the safety belts in cars, weren't required as per law, hence doesn't to resolve the paradox in 1966. Incorrect 
 D. An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before. -  Driver carelessnes, led to collisions, even after implementing safety belt law. That explains why there is no decline in collisions. Correct. 
 E. The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.-  Doesn't explain why the collisions haven't declined, even after such strict quality control. Incorrect.

Answer D.

Thanks,
GyM

HimanshuW11 · Answer

Argument Analysis: 
 Conclusion:  But even though in 1966 one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars, the number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline.
Premises: 
1. Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering. 
2. Previously, most cars in Morodia were without these features. Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place.

The question asks us to explain the paradox, that despite the enforcement of the safety features, why the decline in the collision related injuries didn't happen.

This sounds great that the drivers and passengers that did have used them in 1966 because of the driver education campaign. Which means that the campaign that they organised was a success. But this doesn't explain the paradox that why the decline in the injuries still didn't happen.
This goes out.

When the cars were bought is of no effect here. what we are looking for is to bridge the paradox of having the safety equipments in place, replacing one-seventh of the cars in Morodia and still unable to bring a decline in the collision related injuries.
This option doesn't address this, at the max even if it does, it just strengthen the fact that since the cars were sold in Jan and Feb, the data we had to support the claim mentioned in the argument is of almost whole of the year.

1965 is not the year that needs to be addressed here.

This seems to be a legitimate option to bridge the requirement. The car owners of new cars drove less cautiously in 1966 than before, due to excessive reliance on the new safety features. This answers the paradox. Just by having the safety equipment in place won't help reduce the collision related injuries if the car owners drive less cautiously.
We may keep this option.

It strengthen the case of safety equipments being in place, If at all this argument does something. But what we are looking for is to bridge the paradox of having the safety equipments in place, replacing one-seventh of the cars in Morodia and still unable to bring a decline in the collision related injuries.

Option D is the best Option here.

kiranaimhigh · Answer

Goal: Resolve the Paradox

Paraphrase: In 1966, even if 1/7 of the old cars were replaced with new cars having safety features, still the number of car Collisions and Collisions Related Injuries did not decline.

Prethinking: Cars with Safety Features + Collisions + Collision related Injuries

a) Talks about Safety belts were used by the Drivers and Passengers but doesnt address the reasons for collisions and Collision related Injuries
b) Talks about when these new cares were were purchased.
c) Provides new info which is irrelevant with the Argument.
  d) This Options talks about both Cars with Safety features, despite which collisions and Collision related Injuries have happened. This is the correct answer.  
e) Talks about Quality Checks which is irrelevant.

So, D is the correct answer.

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Despite having additional safety features, the new cars that were introduced in the market did nothing to lower the number of collisions and collision related injuries.

We have been asked to explain why  this  is true.

(A)  Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966.  - Does not explain why the number of collisions and collision related injuries did not decline. Hence, we can   eliminate (A)  .

(B)  Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February.  - Irrelevant. Hence, we can   eliminate (B).

(C)  In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars.  - Does not explain why the number of collisions and collision related injuries did not decline. Hence, we can   eliminate (C).

(D)  An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before.  - This helps explain why the introduction of new cars (that had additional safety features) did not reduce the number of collisions and collision related injuries. Hence,   (D) is the right answer choice .

(E)  The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.  - Irrelevant. Hence,   eliminate (E) .

CEdward · Answer

Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have safety belts and power steering. Previously, most cars in Morodia were without these features. Safety belts help to prevent injuries in collisions, and power steering helps to avoid collisions in the first place. But even though in 1966 one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars, the number of car collisions and collision-related injuries did not decline.

Which of the following, if true about Morodia, most helps to explain why the number of collisions and collision-related injuries in Morodia failed to decline in 1966?

(A) Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966. X
-Now we are even more confused…an education campaign would presumably lead to fewer collisions (people became more cautious and wore seat-belts)…but the question remains…why did the injuries not decline?

(B) Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February. X
-Tempting choice…one might reason that the collisions did not decline because these are the winter months…snow, ice, etc. causes collisions. Careful though…this is saying WHEN the cars were bought…don’t try to draw up perfectly crafted stories…

(C) In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars. X
-Not sure what this is doing here…1965 and 1996 is a 30 year gap…we’re interested in what happened post 1996

(D) An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before. Correct…careless driving.

(E) The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not. X
-more reason to believe accidents should have declined. OUT.

egmat · Answer

Fairly straightforward question. The correct answer -  option D

Passage Analysis 
- Before 1966, most cars in Morodia did not have Power Steering (PS) and Safety Belts (SB)
- Starting in 1966, all new cars in Morodia were required to have PS and SB
- In 1966, 1/7th of cars were replaced with new cars
- PS helps prevent collision, SB helps prevent injuries in case collisions occur

Paradox:  Despite a greater proportion of "safer" cars (having PS and SB), the number of car collisions and collision related injuries did not decline in 1966

Prethinking:  What can explain this paradox?

Key Question:  When will the number of collisions, collision related injuries not decline, despite a greater proportion of safer cars in Morodia?

1. What if the older cars (the ones without PS and SB) were involved in a significantly greater number of accidents (collisions, and related injuries)? Such that it compensated for any reduction thanks to the new cars, keeping the overall accident level at the same. That can explain the paradox

2. What if a different third factor caused a significant number of accidents among the new cars? Example: driver complacency. Drivers believing that PS and SB will keep them safe and not driving carefully, leading to accidents despite PS and SB.

Option Choice Analysis 
(A) Because of a driver-education campaign, most drivers and passengers in cars that did have safety belts used them in 1966.
This only increases belief that collision related injuries should be lesser because SB was used. This only accentuates the paradox instead of resolve it

(B) Most of the new cars bought in 1966 were bought in the months of January and February.
Again, this does not help resolve the paradox. It tells us that a majority of new cars were bought as early as Jan and Feb. Which only adds more credibility to the paradox. if a lot of new cars (with PS and SB) were on the roads as early as Jan/Feb, and despite this, for the year 1966, the number of collisions did not decline, we still need to wonder why. The paradox does not get resolved

(C) In 1965, substantially more than one-seventh of the cars in Morodia were replaced with new cars.
Irrelevant. The replacement with new cars which have PS and SB only happened in 1966. The replacement which happened in 1965 is irrelevant

(D) An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before. 
In line with our prethinking idea 2. A third factor which has impacted the number of collisions - Driver complacency. Option D says that drivers rode less cautiously because of an excessive reliance on PS and SB. This can explain why despite PS and SB, and more such cars on the road, the number of collisions still stayed the same. Drivers stopped being as careful as earlier

(E) The seat belts and power steering put into new cars sold in 1966 had to undergo strict quality-control inspections by manufacturers, whether the cars were manufactured in Morodia or not.
This again does not resolve the paradox. It increases the belief that PS and SB should have worked well to reduce the number of collisions. Why then did this number not decrease?

Hope this helps!

Regards
Harsha

A_Nishith · Answer

We need to find out, why even after replacement of old cars with new ones, the number of car collisions and injuries did not decline.

Prethinking - This could be because of various reasons like - the safety features are not correctly installed, people are taking these safety features for granted and driving rashly or some other factor not taken into account because of which accidents could still happen...

D. An excessive reliance on the new safety features led many owners of new cars to drive less cautiously in 1966 than before.

Answer: C

Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have

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

Beginning in 1966 all new cars sold in Morodia were required to have

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