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 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 2601:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
02 Sep 2011, 06:38
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
91% (01:31) correct
9%
(01:46)
wrong
based on 1354
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Traffic Safety Expert: In order to achieve a substantial reduction in the extremely high number of car accidents in our country, we should implement a radical new safe driving plan. Seat belts and air bags would be eliminated from the driver's side of all automobiles to provide the driver with the strongest possible incentive to drive safely. Further, an electroshock system would administer shocks to the driver if he or she exceeds the speed limit or engages in other unsafe driving practices.
In declaring that the radical new safe driving plan will help to reduce accident rates, the author assumes which of the following?
(A) Many car accidents are caused, at least partially, by naturally occurring conditions such as rain and fog.
(B) Accidents in which one or both participants exceed 60 miles per hour account for a majority of all fatal car accidents.
(C) A significant number of accidents are the result of negligence or other unsafe driving practices on the part of the driver.
(D) To alleviate safety concerns, citizens should be allowed to reinstall their drivers' side seat belts and air bags at their own expense.
(E) If not implemented properly, electroshock systems can cause heart attacks and other health problems.
Source: MGMAT 4th Edition
In declaring that the radical new safe driving plan will help to reduce accident rates, the author assumes which of the following?
(A) Many car accidents are caused, at least partially, by naturally occurring conditions such as rain and fog.
(B) Accidents in which one or both participants exceed 60 miles per hour account for a majority of all fatal car accidents.
(C) A significant number of accidents are the result of negligence or other unsafe driving practices on the part of the driver.
(D) To alleviate safety concerns, citizens should be allowed to reinstall their drivers' side seat belts and air bags at their own expense.
(E) If not implemented properly, electroshock systems can cause heart attacks and other health problems.
Source: MGMAT 4th Edition
03 Sep 2011, 03:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
IMO C. Reasons:
The passage suggests that to reduce accidents, all the necessary radical steps should be taken w.r.t. driver's alertness on the road. Hence, the assumption that the expert draws is that accidents are caused because of negligence on driver's part.
The passage suggests that to reduce accidents, all the necessary radical steps should be taken w.r.t. driver's alertness on the road. Hence, the assumption that the expert draws is that accidents are caused because of negligence on driver's part.
bholakc
10 Sep 2011, 12:13
Kudos
Bookmarks
Another, good question to use to practice focusing on the exact scope of the conclusion as given (rather than information we know from the real world).
The traffic expert’s argument can be summed up as follows:
Radical incentives to encourage safe driving (no seat belts, electroshocks for speeding)->Substantially reduced # of car accidents
This is an assumption question, and you might have recognized right away that there is a logical gap between the language used in the GOAL (reduced ACCIDENTS) and the premises (incentives for SAFE DRIVING)…we might think, based on our own preexisting assumptions, that unsafe driving is always linked to accidents, but that’s not necessarily true.
Even if we didn’t recognize that gap, we can still focus very specifically on the wording of the conclusion to get us there.
(A) If many accidents are caused by things OTHER than safe-driving, this would weaken the conclusion, not help support it. Eliminate.
(B) There’s a little word inserted here that’s crucial—“all fatal car accidents.” We’ve shifted the scope from “the number of car accidents” to “fatal car accidents”—these are not comparable groups. Little words, especially near the ends of sentences, can be super important on the GMAT. Eliminate.
(C) The phrase “significant number” is helpful here, since we want to “substantially” decrease the number of accidents. This answer choice also links the accidents to the unsafe practices addressed by the crazy incentives. Hold onto it, but keep going.
(D) What someone “should” or “should not” do is a moral claim, and this choice is therefore out of scope. We want to help prove a factual claim (incentives->reduced accidents). Pay attention to those little words! Eliminate.
(E) We don’t know whether the electroshock systems would be implemented properly. And even if they weren’t, the fact that they could cause heart attacks would probably lead to more accidents, not fewer.
C is the only choice that directly links the language of the conclusion with the language of the premises, so it’s our keeper.
The traffic expert’s argument can be summed up as follows:
Radical incentives to encourage safe driving (no seat belts, electroshocks for speeding)->Substantially reduced # of car accidents
This is an assumption question, and you might have recognized right away that there is a logical gap between the language used in the GOAL (reduced ACCIDENTS) and the premises (incentives for SAFE DRIVING)…we might think, based on our own preexisting assumptions, that unsafe driving is always linked to accidents, but that’s not necessarily true.
Even if we didn’t recognize that gap, we can still focus very specifically on the wording of the conclusion to get us there.
(A) If many accidents are caused by things OTHER than safe-driving, this would weaken the conclusion, not help support it. Eliminate.
(B) There’s a little word inserted here that’s crucial—“all fatal car accidents.” We’ve shifted the scope from “the number of car accidents” to “fatal car accidents”—these are not comparable groups. Little words, especially near the ends of sentences, can be super important on the GMAT. Eliminate.
(C) The phrase “significant number” is helpful here, since we want to “substantially” decrease the number of accidents. This answer choice also links the accidents to the unsafe practices addressed by the crazy incentives. Hold onto it, but keep going.
(D) What someone “should” or “should not” do is a moral claim, and this choice is therefore out of scope. We want to help prove a factual claim (incentives->reduced accidents). Pay attention to those little words! Eliminate.
(E) We don’t know whether the electroshock systems would be implemented properly. And even if they weren’t, the fact that they could cause heart attacks would probably lead to more accidents, not fewer.
C is the only choice that directly links the language of the conclusion with the language of the premises, so it’s our keeper.
