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.
17 Dec 2025, 13:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Going through sentence by sentence what the argument is saying:
S1: Drones are a safe way to deliver packages.
S2: But they're not safe, because 60 accidents happened at 2 companies.
S3: Conclusion - New drones aren't going to have better safeguards, thus accidents are going to be more prevalent (note the use of prevalent and not frequent here. Frequency can equal prevalence, but prevalence means widespread, versus frequency which means "more often").
Looking to weaken the argument, so lets see what truly breaks the argument's logic.
Option A: It's not about how much damage was done, it's about the accidents happening at all. Irrelevant, eliminate.
Option B: Bikes having more accidents doesn't have anything to do with drones having accidents. Irrelevant, eliminate.
Option C: The fleets won't buy new drones because they have enough. The new drones don't have upgraded safety features, so model of drone doesn't matter. Irrelevant, eliminate.
Option D: Basically, this says that the percentage of accidents is the same for new and old fleets. This is tempting, but the argument we're trying to break is that accidents are going to be more prevalent. There's some logic to it, but it doesn't cleanly break the argument.
Option E: This is a solid way to break the argument. It essentially says that it's not the equipment that's the problem, it's the operators, so this is a localized and specific problem for these two companies and not an overall problem for the equipment. More drone deliveries will not equal more prevalent accidents.
Therefore Option E is the answer.
17 Dec 2025, 13:28
Kudos
Bookmarks
Main Point: Increase in accidents if use of drone delivery increases
Basis: (1) 60 accidents in the past (2) No additional safeguard in proposed new drone
Logic: Accidents have occurred in the past. It is likely due to safeguard issue in drone design. And since that has not changed, the accidents will increase.
(A), (B), (C) - Irrelevant.
(D) - tempting but it only shows that accident rate will be stable in both new and old fleets. It doesn't challenge the assumption that more drones = more accidents
(E) - Weakens the logic. As this options tells that accidents are likely due to training issue and not due to drone design. So if training is provided, accidents might not increase.
(E) is the answer
Basis: (1) 60 accidents in the past (2) No additional safeguard in proposed new drone
Logic: Accidents have occurred in the past. It is likely due to safeguard issue in drone design. And since that has not changed, the accidents will increase.
(A), (B), (C) - Irrelevant.
(D) - tempting but it only shows that accident rate will be stable in both new and old fleets. It doesn't challenge the assumption that more drones = more accidents
(E) - Weakens the logic. As this options tells that accidents are likely due to training issue and not due to drone design. So if training is provided, accidents might not increase.
(E) is the answer
17 Dec 2025, 13:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
Conclusion: The number of drone accidents will increase as there are no additional safeguards.
A. Incorrect and Irrelevant. We are not debating if the drone results in damage or not. The conclusion states that the accidents will increase.
B. Incorrect : We are only concerend about drone delivery. Any comparision is not relevant to the conclusion.
C. Incorrect : Doesn't imapct our conclusion. The icnrease in delviery can be met using existing drones and accidents can still increase. Out of scope. Eliminate.
D. Incorrect : Strengthens the conclusion. Eliminate.
E. Correct : This tells us a reason on why the drones encountered accidents. Now if the operators are trained the accidents will reduce.
Option E
