Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a

Question

Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a serious problem. A new device produces radio signals that allow police to track stolen vehicles, and the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive. The device is too expensive to install in every truck, so we plan to install it in half of our trucks. Using those trucks for the most valuable cargo should largely eliminate losses from theft.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the trucking company owner's expectation about the results of implementing the plan?

A) For thieves, a cargo is valuable only if it is easy for them to dispose of profitably.

B) Some insurance companies charge less to insure cargoes transported in trucks protected by the device.

C) Most stolen trucks are eventually found, but unless a stolen truck is found very soon after it is taken, the likelihood that the trucking company will recover any of its cargo is very low.

D) Thieves generally avoid trucks belonging to trucking companies that are known to have installed the device in a large proportion of their trucks.

E) The manufacturer of the device offers a five-year warranty on each unit sold, a longer warranty than any that is offered on any competing antitheft device.

ID: 500278
CR29940.02

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The question asks us which answer choice "most strongly supports" the expectation that the plan will largely eliminate losses from theft. So we don't need to prove  without a doubt  that the plan will have this result. Instead, we just need to choose the answer choice that supports the plan more than the other answer choices do.

I agree that we aren't provided with an exact definition of "large proportion." What we  do  know is that the device will be installed in the 50% of trucks with the most valuable cargo. From a thief's perspective, this proportion seems pretty dang high -- if the thief targets this company, he/she has a 50% chance of choosing a truck with one of the devices installed. The information in (D) supports the company's expectation, even if there is a bit of doubt about the exact definition of "large proportion."

So, how do the other answer choices stack up?
 
There is nothing to suggest how easy it is to dispose of the company's cargo, or whether that is impacted at all by the tracking devices.

Eliminate (A).

The company owner expects that installing the devices should "largely eliminate losses  from theft. " Insurance rates are an entirely different cost, so (B) doesn't provide any information to support the owner's argument.

(B) is out.

The passage tells us that "the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive," but doesn't tell us  how quickly  the trucks are found. It's possible that the thieves can offload the cargo well before the trucks are found, even if the tracking devices are installed.

Get rid of (C).

Like (B), (E) gives us information about a completely different potential cost. The company owner cares specifically about eliminating loss from theft. A longer warranty has no impact on loss from theft, so (E) can't be the answer.

Because there are strong reasons to eliminate every answer except (D), (D) is the option that "most strongly supports" the company owner's expectations.

I hope that helps!

Kritisood · Answer

All others are easy to eliminate, why C is incorrect is because the trucking co. will only install the alarms in half of its vehicles. The other half could, rather are (unless you take D to be the right answer) still be prone to thefts. And if the likelihood of recovering cargo from the other half is very less then the trucking co. will not "largely eliminate losses from theft."

st1gg3r · Answer

A) For thieves, a cargo is valuable only if it is easy for them to dispose of profitably.  Passage does not mention disposing off stolen goods. Its possible that the theft is on behalf of someone else

B) Some insurance companies charge less to insure cargoes transported in trucks protected by the device.  Irrelevant. There is nothing about insurance mentioned in the passage

C) Most stolen trucks are eventually found, but unless a stolen truck is found very soon after it is taken, the likelihood that the trucking company will recover any of its cargo is very low.  Passage only mentions that trucks are recovered but not the time period.

D) Thieves generally avoid trucks belonging to trucking companies that are known to have installed the device in a large proportion of their trucks.  If an company has installed devices in 50% of its fleet the thieves will choose not to target the trucks. So even if only trucks transporting valuable goods have the device thieves will think twice before going after a truck which has low value cargo.

E) The manufacturer of the device offers a five-year warranty on each unit sold, a longer warranty than any that is offered on any competing antitheft device.  Irrelevant. Device warranty doesnt mean thieves wont target a truck.

itspC · Answer

Most strongly supports ?? : choose the best available option supporting the owner's conclusion Pre thinking: Thieves won't steal Cargo of owner. A)Not inline with prethinking: Cargo need not be disposed of by thieves . Maybe they are transporting it as a whole to someone Or maybe they will use it for themselves. BUT how is it even related to device and conclusion of owner ??( Generally Even if it is HARD to dispose of X.. if they really can do so at ?) B)So wt losses may be still high if thieves stole trucks! C)Found or lost time : irrelevan t D)LARGE proportion ?? we know 50% (I doubt this, lets see) . OK But the result is " Thieves won't steal". Let's see if we have any better option. E)Warranty ?

warranty for device ? seriously Out of scope: nowhere near the galaxy So, though a bit doubtful, I can see no other better option than D Therefore our answer is D Don't correct my grammar it's not SC

. I m being concise.

Hope this helps.

jackky · Answer

GMATNinja

Could you please help with option D. how does 50% correspond to large proportion ?

Really struggling to pick this option as correct one.

celan · Answer

Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a serious problem. A new device produces radio signals that allow police to track stolen vehicles, and the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive. The device is too expensive to install in every truck, so we plan to install it in half of our trucks. Using those trucks for the most valuable cargo should largely eliminate losses from theft.

P : Device help to recovery the stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device
P : The device will be installed in half of the trucks since it is expensive
C : Using trucks with device in transporting most valuable cargo will eliminate losses from theft.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the trucking company owner’s expectation about the results of implementing the plan?

A. For thieves, a cargo is valuable only if it is easy for them to dispose of profitably.
-> Regardless of the device, the cargo in the truck will still be valuable for thieves. Thus this information neither supports nor weakens the argument.

B. Some insurance companies charge less to insure cargoes transported in trucks protected by the device.
-> Lower charge from insurance companies will provide another reason to install the device. However, this information does not directly touch the relation between installing the device and eliminating losses from theft.

C. Most stolen trucks are eventually found, but unless a stolen truck is found very soon after it is taken, the likelihood that the trucking company will recover any of its cargo is very low.
-> The premise has noted that device helps to recover stolen cargo. Thus this information does not weaken nor strengthen the argument. Moreover, still 50% of the trucks will not have devices and if stolen, cargos inside those trucks will be lost. The objective of the company's representative is to eliminate losses from theft not reducing. Thus this answer choice cannot be the answer.

D. Thieves generally avoid trucks belonging to trucking companies that are known to have installed the device in a large proportion of their trucks.
-> Correct. By installing 50% of trucks with most valuable cargo, thieves will gradually get to know that the truck of the company has the device equipped, thus avoid stealing trucks from the company.

E. The manufacturer of the device offers a five-year warranty on each unit sold, a longer warranty than any that is offered on any competing antitheft device.
-> Warranty is not the concern in this question.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - Want to understand, what  inferences  I can make with (c).

From (c) -- we realize  MOST STOLEN TRUCKS  are  recovered anyways . So what is the point of the device then, if everything is  eventually found  ?

According to (c) -- we learn that :  the truck have to be recovered  VERY SOON .

Now from the  free info / free premises , we find that " Recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive "

So if I  combine  information from (c) + information from the free info ==

I infer (ONLY WITH OPTION C) -->  the  device  helps in recovery trucks  QUICKLY

I  cant  make the underlined inference when I move onto to OTHER OPTIONS, similar to a DS question.

avigutman · Answer

I agree with this 100%  jabhatta2

Posted from my mobile device

jabhatta2 · Answer

OA solution in case some one is interested

jabhatta2 · Answer

Notes for me (no question)

– As per (c) only – we can infer that .. The device helps in recovery FAST

We cannot determine the underlined inference from (d), (E) or (A) and (B)

Thus, don’t think you the inference in the underline is a strengthener, making (c) a viable choice too in addition to (D) ?

OR 
Is (C) still wrong because the conclusion is talking – “no theft”

The underlined inference in (C) is talking about “ theft will take place but the recovery will also take place”

------------

^^ Note from Jd - no the above is wrong.

You have not reead the conclusion - the conclusion is not about "no theft". The conclusion is about "largely eliminate losses from theft" == so even if the truck is stolen and the recovery is GOOD / Fast == thats okay

The reason why (c) is wrong is because the conclusion talks about "largely eliminate losses from theft."

That means == the 2nd truck (with the lesser valuable stuff) ALSO has to NOT GET STOLEN.

with C -- only talks abt truck 1

D is much better because D says == truck 1 and truck 2 BOTH WONT GET stolen, which is in line wiht the conclusion "largely eliminate losses from theft."

avigutman · Answer

Information about the speed of the recovery doesn’t add any value,  jabhatta2 .
We already knew that the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive. The owner doesn’t care about the amount of time it takes to get back the cargo, as far as we know.

Posted from my mobile device

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  GMATNinja   KarishmaB   IanStewart

I am not very comfortable rejecting option A.

If there are anti-theft devices in trucks and option A says that cargo is valuable only when thieves can dispose them profitably then it increases my confidence that the plan will work because recovery rate for stolen cargo is impressive so it is very less likely for thieves to dispose stolen cargo profitably. Can you please explain where I am going wrong?

GmatKnightTutor · Answer

Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a serious problem. A new device produces radio signals that allow police to track stolen vehicles, and the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive. The device is too expensive to install in every truck, so we plan to install it in half of our trucks. Using those trucks for the most valuable cargo should largely eliminate losses from theft.

Which of the following, if true, most strongly supports the trucking company owner's expectation about the results of implementing the plan?

Hello, people. Let’s get into this. Ultimately, being very clear what the OWNER’S EXPECTATION is can be super helpful because that is what we’re looking to specifically support. Here, it really comes down to the owner believing that using these radio devices in half of the company’s trucks (which will be used to transport the most valuable cargo) will result in significantly getting rid of any loss from theft.

A) For thieves, a cargo is valuable only if it is easy for them to dispose of profitably. 
Not what we’re looking for. This talks about what makes cargo valuable to thieves. I understand the passage talks a bit about the radio devices being put in those trucks with the most valuable cargo but there’s a little nuance here to be a little careful of. First, what is considered “valuable” to the owner (e.g. the retail value of an item) and to a thief (e.g. the ability to sell an item easily for a profit) may not be the same. Second, this answer choice doesn’t strengthen the EXPECTATION of the owner. The passage already tells us the recovery rate of trucks with these devices is IMPRESSIVE. We're looking, in a sense, for something additional.

B) Some insurance companies charge less to insure cargoes transported in trucks protected by the device. 
Nope. This answer choice may mean the company pays less money for insurance but it doesn’t strengthen the idea that loss from theft will be largely eliminated.

C) Most stolen trucks are eventually found, but unless a stolen truck is found very soon after it is taken, the likelihood that the trucking company will recover any of its cargo is very low. 
Nope. If anything, this talks about how hard it is to recover a stolen truck.

D) Thieves generally avoid trucks belonging to trucking companies that are known to have installed the device in a large proportion of their trucks. 
This is the answer. If simply knowing that a certain trucking company is using these radio devices deters potential theft, that company would, in effect, be stopping theft before it even occurs. Imagine if a company used to (on average) have 10 trucks stolen a month but now, because it’s widely known these radio devices are used by them, only has 1 truck stolen a month. This would mean their total loss from theft would be significantly eliminated.

E) The manufacturer of the device offers a five-year warranty on each unit sold, a longer warranty than any that is offered on any competing antitheft device. 
Not what we’re looking for. Even if the guarantee for these devices covers a significantly period than the industry average, it doesn’t necessarily add anything to the expectation of the owner: that losses from theft will be significantly eliminated by using them. We need to something that speaks to how effective these devices are in reducing loss from theft – not how long one can ask the manufacturer to repair or replace them.

KarishmaB · Answer

Trucking company owner Premises: 
Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a serious problem. 
A new device produces radio signals that allow police to track stolen vehicles, and the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with the device is impressive. 
The device is too expensive to install in every truck,

Plan:   Install device in half of our trucks.

Aim:   Using those trucks for the most valuable cargo should largely eliminate losses from theft.

What would support the trucking company owner's expectation about the results of implementing the plan? What would say that installing the device in 50% trucks would likely eliminate losses from theft i.e. would have almost 100% impact?

- Say, if robbers steal only trucks that have very valuable cargo so they won't anyway steal trucks that don't have the device.
- Or they avoid trucks of companies that are known to have installed the device in a large proportion of their trucks.
etc.

Hence option (D) works.

A) For thieves, a cargo is valuable only if it is easy for them to dispose of profitably.

Not correct. We don't know which cargo is easy to dispose off profitably for robbers. Is it the very valuable cargo or the not so valuable cargo as per the trucking company? 
Say very valuable cargo is cars but they are very hard to sell off profitably (because of their unique identification numbers etc) while less valuable cargo is clothes but they are easy to sell off profitably. Then the robbers may still target trucks without the device carrying clothes (since clothes are less valuable to the trucking company). Then losses may not be eliminated. 
 agrasan  : The point is the option doesn't specify whether what is valuable for trucking company is valuable for robbers too or not.

B) Some insurance companies charge less to insure cargoes transported in trucks protected by the device.

Financial advantage in terms of lower insurance charges is irrelevant. Will the trucks get robbed or not is the point.

C) Most stolen trucks are eventually found, but unless a stolen truck is found very soon after it is taken, the likelihood that the trucking company will recover any of its cargo is very low.

No discussion on how the 50% trucks with devices will eliminate robbery almost completely.

E) The manufacturer of the device offers a five-year warranty on each unit sold, a longer warranty than any that is offered on any competing antitheft device.

Irrelevant

Answer (D)

yazlal25 · Answer

GMATNinja

The passage tells us this ''the recovery rate for stolen cargo in trucks equipped with this device is impressive''. This means that the cargo has high chances of being recovered and this also means that the losses from theft will be largely eliminated given that the device will be installed in trucks with most valuable cargo. I dont see a reason here why finding trucks 'quickly' or not matters, because the cargo is getting recovered and thats the only thing that matters. Hence, I went for Option C.

Could you let me know if there is a flaw in my reasoning above ?

Could you let me know if there is a flaw in my reasoning above ?

GMATNinja · Answer

"I dont see a reason here why finding trucks 'quickly' or not matters, because the cargo is getting recovered and thats the only thing that matters" - That's actually a good reason to eliminate (C). The speed of recovery isn't really an issue. As you said, all that matters is that the recovery rate for stolen cargo is impressive for trucks equipped with the device.

(C) doesn't change the data, so it doesn't strengthen the argument.

The question remains: will installing the devices on trucks with the most valuable cargo actually help  eliminate  losses from theft? If thieves manage to get away with the cargo from the other half of the trucks, loss from theft will likely be reduced but certainly not eliminated.

But if (D) is true, thieves generally will avoid targeting that company's trucks altogether. So not having the device installed on half of the trucks shouldn't matter.

rajeevvarmajaga · Answer

How can we be sure that installing the device in just half the fleet qualifies as a “large proportion” in the thieves’ eyes?

Thanks in advance for clarifying this key assumption!

soniasw16 · Answer

Why is B not relevant? Let's say I initially paid $100 per month, and now that I have installed the cameras, I only pay $90. Assuming theft occurs on the same truck with the same valuables, I would've made lesser loss with the new insurance amount?

GMATNinja · Answer

We can't be sure! This is an important lesson for the GMAT. (And in life, I suppose.) When you're evaluating answer choices, you're not looking to select the options that are definitely correct. You're looking to eliminate the ones that are definitively wrong, and then once you do that, to select the best of what's remaining.

So when you evaluate (D), you may well ask yourself, "is 50%  really  a large proportion of trucks? I know 90% is large, but half?" But then think about the context: if you were a thief and you discovered that 50% of Company X's trucks were equipped with technology that would likely lead to you getting caught, would you be a little leery about stealing from Company X? It's definitely possible, right?

Put another way, it's hard to imagine any would-be thief catching wind of the 50% stat and concluding, "Phew! Because there's not a large proportion of trucks with this technology, I'm in the clear to steal trucks from Company X. Yay!"

So is (D) an ironclad correct answer? Nope. 100% definitive? Nope. Good enough to hold on to? Absolutely.

And after evaluating the other options, it's hard to escape the conclusion that (D), while not ironclad, is substantially better than the alternatives. In theory, it supports the company's expectation that the plan will stop the thievery. So (D) it is.

The takeaway: let go of the need for certainty! Ask yourself if an answer could, in theory, work. If it could, keep it, even if it isn't perfect. We don't need perfect. We just need something that's better than the others.

I hope that helps!

Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a

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

Trucking company owner: Theft of trucks containing valuable cargo is a

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