A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of

Question

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of boaters in Miami have been issued speeding tickets, 40 percent of the boaters issued tickets had received at least one ticket previously. Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the above argument?

A) Boaters in Miami exceed the speed limit more frequently than boaters in other Florida cities.

B) Many boaters that were ticketed for speeding were ticketed more than once in the time period of the report.

C) Miami is more vigilant in ticketing boaters who exceed the speed limit than most other cities.

D) The number of boaters ticketed for speeding during the period of this report is less than the number ticketed during the period of the previous report.

E) During the period of this report, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again.

Argument - People who had received ticket in past will receive tickets in future -- > we got this conclusion based on the data

We have to weaken it - We can do that by saying THIS REPORT IS FLAWED

A- Compares with florida - no use
2- Strengthens the conclusion
3- Strengthens the conclusion in some extent since Miami is strict meaning boaters are making mistake
4- Comparison - of no use
5 - Yes if they are catching the boaters from same location again and again there is a flaw

Aj85 · Answer

a) out of scope, so cross immediately.

b) this is nothing but what the passage already says. the passage says 40% who were issued the ticket had received previously too.

c) however vigilant miami is doesn't matters. We have to rebuke the theory that boaters who receive a speeding ticket once are more likely to repeat the mistake.

d) out of scope.

e) This is the answer. tickets were  issued from only one location  catching many of the same boaters again and again.

So the representative data of forming the opinion itself is wrong as pointed in option E. If you only take data from one place then surely only people who live near it are likely to be present in that place. so sample size over which survey was done is too small and unrepresentative of forming any opinion. Thus the argument is weakened.

fivedaysleft · Answer

nice question.

Ans E because :

premise 1 : 2pc of total boaters are caught.
premise 2 : 40pc of the tickets are issued to people who have had atleast one ticket before.

consider an extreme case in which out of the 2pc => everyone got ticket only once whereas =>one person committed sppeding crimes continously and kept on getting tickets => percentage numbers would get inflated up by his act even though it wont be the true indicator.

so Ans E

any doubt? I feel my explanation was not very satisfactory.

RohitKalla · Answer

Agreed that if just one person is committing the crime, the pc would go up. But thats wat we assume. If we read the argument (option E) , It says, tickets were issued from only one location  catching many of the same boaters again and again.   Doesn't it also indicate that people who have got ticketed, do tend to commit crime repeatedly there by strengthening the argument??!

fivedaysleft · Answer

"Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding."

When they are measuring first time criminals then the sample is bound to be all different. But fore more than one,  many  will be repeaters. we agree till here?
 
now there is the dilemma of "many" and "most". "many" means the number is more than one whereas "most" would mean more than 50%.

also, the use of " same location " is restricting the sample.

If the statement had said that the  different locations  caught  most of the boaters  again and again, your argument would hold and this would strengthen the conclusion.

did the explanation make sense?

DevilDoggNC · Answer

E for me -- it weakens the assumption.

fluke · Answer

Not too convincing a weakener but not too bad either. I answered "E" by elimination and also because it gave some considerable reason to doubt the conclusion.

Footnote:
A generalization about an entire population using a report from a localized data set is sometimes, if not always, considered a weak argument by GMAT.

garimavyas · Answer

this is not similar to the radar problem of the OG 12 .this is fairly simple compared to that problem in OG look at this one a-recent-report-determined-94309.html

daagh · Answer

An insufficient sampling is never representative. It weakens all generalizations So E is the best .

AkshdeepS · Answer

E is the clear winner as it shows sample/survey is not representative, and therefore we can not conclude anything from this.

Tanvay · Answer

Can someone please explain why answer is not D. I understood why answer is E but cant it be D?

If currently there are less people receiving tickets compared with previous tickets means Argument is weakened right?

Tanvay · Answer

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of boaters in Miami have been issued speeding tickets, 40 percent of the boaters issued tickets had received at least one ticket previously. Clearly, boaters who receive a speeding ticket are more likely to exceed the speed limit again in the future than boaters who have never been ticketed for speeding.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the above argument?

A) Boaters in Miami exceed the speed limit more frequently than boaters in other Florida cities.

B) Many boaters that were ticketed for speeding were ticketed more than once in the time period of the report.

C) Miami is more vigilant in ticketing boaters who exceed the speed limit than most other cities.

D) The number of boaters ticketed for speeding during the period of this report is less than the number ticketed during the period of the previous report.

E) During the period of this report, tickets were issued from only one location catching many of the same boaters again and again.

Argument - People who had received ticket in past will receive tickets in future -- > we got this conclusion based on the data

We have to weaken it - We can do that by saying THIS REPORT IS FLAWED

A- Compares with florida - no use
2- Strengthens the conclusion 
3- Strengthens the conclusion in some extent since Miami is strict meaning boaters are making mistake
4- Comparison - of no use
5 - Yes if they are catching the boaters from same location again and again there is a flaw

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of

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

A recent report determined that although only 2 percent of

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