Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled

Question

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled fines for infringement of traffic regulations. Since 2009, the number of serious car accidents in Laconia has decreased by 20 percent. Based on this evidence, it can be concluded that it was the increased fines that brought about the decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Journalist: However, you must also consider that until 2009, the Laconian police force classified as serious all car accidents in which more than two vehicles were involved; starting in 2009, only accidents that involved more than three vehicles were considered serious.

The journalist attacks the politician’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A)Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.

(C)Suggesting that the politician uses evidence about few cases to draw a general conclusion.

(D)Presenting information that is more recent than information on which the politician’s argument is built.

(E)Implying that the politician manipulates information about the percent decrease to draw a conclusion about a number decrease.

aceacharya · Answer

C, D and E are not suitable. Out of A and B, A is more appropriate because B says that the journalist's evidence suggests that the politicians argument is not accurate. But the passage merely mentions that the basis of the statistic changed. So essentially the assumption behind the figure has changed but the figure itself cannot be deemed inaccurate

jns · Answer

Clearly the contention is between A and B. Let's break the argument into evidences and assumptions.
Politician:
Evidence 1: 2009 GoL increased fines for traffic violation.
Evidence 2: Since 2009 SCA reduced by 20%.
Assumption: Increase in fine led to the decrease in number of SCA.

Journalist:
Evidence: Until 2009, SCA = accidents involving 2 cars. Starting 2009, SCA = accidents involving 3 cars.

(B)Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.  Incorrect  , because the evidence provided by the journalist talks only about the SCA and its meaning. It does not invalidate any of the evidences provided by the politician.

mohnish104 · Answer

I took 10 mins but finally figured out A

semwal · Answer

Politician: Increased fines-------- LED TO -------- decrease in the number of serious car accidents.

Assumption...1. Nothing else led to decrease in SCA.
 2. SCAs did not lead to Increased fines.
 3. It was not coincidental - that Increased fines and decrease in the number of serious car accidents happened simultaneously.

A. Correct......  see 1. above .... it was not fines but incorrect interpretation of what is SCA that led to the increase in SCA.

B. Wrong.  EVIDENCE CANT BE WRONG.... Evidence is evidence..... interpretation may be wrong. Addl info may weaken the assumption but not negate a fact.......

kudos if u please......

mridupawandas · Answer

The choice A talks about the assumption. lets see how the journalist undermines the assumption.He gives additional information is correct but he is also undermining the assumption.Because for the politician to conclude that serious accidents decreases by 20 percent means he has to assume a situation that number of accidents had remained the same .But the journalist attacks this assumption by stating that the domain of what a serious has changed and that earlier what was considered a serious accident is now not considered. so this reason is the best. Hope this explanation helps.

Temurkhon · Answer

took 1'44'' to take A

Causation bias is clear after reading the Politician statement. And assumption is "no other reason for declining the accidents"

Journalist attacks these assumption

warriorguy · Answer

The journalist agrees with the conclusion and evidence stated by the politician; however, he provides an alternate cause which could have led to the conclusion.

hence A

A_Nishith · Answer

To determine the correct answer, let's break down the arguments made by the politician and the journalist:

Politician's Argument: 
In 2009, Laconia tripled fines for traffic infringements.
Since 2009, serious car accidents decreased by 20%.

Conclusion:  Increased fines caused the decrease in serious car accidents.
Journalist's Counterargument:

- Until 2009, serious car accidents were defined as those involving more than two vehicles.
- Starting in 2009, serious car accidents were redefined to include only those involving more than three vehicles.
- The journalist's point suggests that the criteria for classifying accidents as serious changed in 2009. This change could account
for the observed decrease in serious car accidents, rather than the increased fines.

Let's examine the answer choices:

(A) Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

The journalist's information challenges the assumption that the only significant change affecting accident statistics was the increased fines. Therefore, this seems like a strong candidate.

(B) Presenting additional information that suggests that evidence presented by the politician is not accurate.

The journalist is not questioning the accuracy of the statistics but is providing context that might explain the statistics differently.

(C) Suggesting that the politician uses evidence about few cases to draw a general conclusion.

The journalist does not suggest the politician is drawing conclusions from too few cases.

(D) Presenting information that is more recent than information on which the politician’s argument is built.

The journalist’s information is from the same time period (starting in 2009) and is not necessarily more recent.

(E) Implying that the politician manipulates information about the percent decrease to draw a conclusion about a number decrease.

The journalist does not imply manipulation of the data about the percent decrease.

The correct answer is:
(A)  Undermining the validity of the assumption on which the politician’s argument depends.

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.

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled

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

Politician: Early in 2009, the government of Laconia tripled

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