Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2212:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Rahul_Sharma23
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V83 DI83 
Posts: 116
02 Jul 2025, 22:47
Kudos
Bookmarks
If the accidents caused due to other factors has risen sharply in number then the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights will decrease even if it is same in number as it was the previous year. Option B clearly highlights the logical flaw
Bunuel
02 Jul 2025, 22:53
Kudos
Bookmarks
assumed causation flaw : that the resident assumes the percentage decrease in accidents directly resulted from the police acting on inquests. there's no evidence of police action or a link between the inquests and the outcome. the conclusion assumes a cause (police action) purely based on a result (percentage drop), without proving that cause occurred or that it led to the effect.
the second flaw is percentage vs absolute numbers. even if the percentage of traffic light–related accidents dropped, the actual number may have stayed the same or even increased if total accidents rose. drawing a conclusion about improvement based only on percentage without knowing the base is logically flawed.
option a talks about misclassification, which questions data accuracy but doesn’t touch either flaw.
option c questions the reliability of inquests as a data source, which again doesn’t touch the logic.
option d talks about inquests rising due to other accidents, which is irrelevant to the main argument.
option e is about residents’ beliefs, which doesn’t affect the logical structure.
only option b addresses the logic. if other accident types rose sharply, then even if traffic-light-related accidents dropped as a percentage, the overall safety situation may be worse. this directly targets the conclusion and exposes both flaws: that perceived improvement may not be real (percent vs absolute), and that no causal link between the claimed action and outcome is established.
correct answer is b
the second flaw is percentage vs absolute numbers. even if the percentage of traffic light–related accidents dropped, the actual number may have stayed the same or even increased if total accidents rose. drawing a conclusion about improvement based only on percentage without knowing the base is logically flawed.
option a talks about misclassification, which questions data accuracy but doesn’t touch either flaw.
option c questions the reliability of inquests as a data source, which again doesn’t touch the logic.
option d talks about inquests rising due to other accidents, which is irrelevant to the main argument.
option e is about residents’ beliefs, which doesn’t affect the logical structure.
only option b addresses the logic. if other accident types rose sharply, then even if traffic-light-related accidents dropped as a percentage, the overall safety situation may be worse. this directly targets the conclusion and exposes both flaws: that perceived improvement may not be real (percent vs absolute), and that no causal link between the claimed action and outcome is established.
correct answer is b
02 Jul 2025, 22:59
Kudos
Bookmarks
Premise:
This year, the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has fallen.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the traffic police responded to inquests and took effective measures, leading to a decrease in preventable traffic safety issues.
Flaw:
The argument assumes that the decline in this specific type of accident is due to police action — without ruling out other explanations for the decline.
This is a causal flaw: correlation ≠ causation.
(A) Incorrect – Challenges data accuracy, but the argument is about trend over time, not classification error in a single year.
(B) Correct – Weakens the conclusion by suggesting the percentage of traffic-light accidents fell only because other accident types increased, not because fewer violations occurred.
(C) Incorrect – The argument doesn’t use inquests to count accidents, but to explain police motivation.
(D) Irrelevant – Doesn’t challenge the link between reduced traffic-light violations and police measures.
(E) Incorrect – Residents’ beliefs don’t affect the official cause data cited in the argument.
Option:(B)
It directly weakens the causal conclusion by showing the drop in percentage may result from an increase in other accidents, not from improved enforcement or police action.
This year, the percentage of accidents caused by drivers ignoring traffic lights has fallen.
Conclusion:
Therefore, the traffic police responded to inquests and took effective measures, leading to a decrease in preventable traffic safety issues.
Flaw:
The argument assumes that the decline in this specific type of accident is due to police action — without ruling out other explanations for the decline.
This is a causal flaw: correlation ≠ causation.
(A) Incorrect – Challenges data accuracy, but the argument is about trend over time, not classification error in a single year.
(B) Correct – Weakens the conclusion by suggesting the percentage of traffic-light accidents fell only because other accident types increased, not because fewer violations occurred.
(C) Incorrect – The argument doesn’t use inquests to count accidents, but to explain police motivation.
(D) Irrelevant – Doesn’t challenge the link between reduced traffic-light violations and police measures.
(E) Incorrect – Residents’ beliefs don’t affect the official cause data cited in the argument.
Option:(B)
It directly weakens the causal conclusion by showing the drop in percentage may result from an increase in other accidents, not from improved enforcement or police action.
