If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile

Question

12. If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile crashes enable computers to provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes, then manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes. For the costs of designing and running computer simulations are much lower than those of actual test crashes.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers.

(B) It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes.

(C) If computer simulations will soon be able to provide more information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, automobile manufacturers will soon be able to produce safer cars.

(D) The cost per automobile of testing and designing safety features is decreasing and will continue to decrease for the foreseeable future.

(E) For years, the aviation industry has been successfully using computer simulations of airplane crashes to test the effectiveness of safety features of airplane designs.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Here's a breakdown of the passage:

The author  concludes  that "If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile crashes enable computers to provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes, then manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes."

The evidence to  support  this conclusion is that "the costs of designing and running computer simulations are much lower than those of actual test crashes."

Notice that the "If" statement is  part  of the conclusion -- this is absolutely essential to understanding the scope of the author's argument.

Here's a simpler example of a conclusion:

IF it rains tomorrow, THEN I won't have to pay for a car wash.  
My argument is not that it's going to rain, or even that it's likely to rain. Instead, my argument is LIMITED to a world in which it rains. In that world, I believe that I won't have to pay for a car wash.

To strengthen this argument, I could say something like "The rain always washes my car for free." This provides evidence that if it does rain, I won't need to pay anything. Seems like a pretty strong argument!

This, however, would not strengthen the argument: "It's certainly going to rain tomorrow." Again, I don't care whether it's ACTUALLY going to rain -- I only care that IF it rains, I won't have to pay for a car wash. "It's certainly going to rain tomorrow" doesn't tell me whether I'll have to pay up or not.

Back to the original passage: the author concludes that "IF future improvements to computer simulations of automobile crashes enable computers to provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes, THEN manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes."

So, the conclusion is LIMITED to a world in which computer simulations provide as much reliable info about safety features as is provided by test crashes.

Which answer choice strengthens that conclusion?
 
(A) gives us reason to believe that manufacturers will uses fewer test crashes. After all, the test crashes don't provide anything other than info about safety features, and the author's conclusion ALREADY specifies that the computer simulations are just as good when it comes to safety features. So, the test crashes provide the same information and are way more expensive.

(A) strengthens the argument, so keep it.

The author already set a limiting condition on his/her conclusion -- IF computer simulations provide  as much  information about safety features, then the author predicts that a certain outcome will occur.

(B) tells us that, within the next 20 years, computer simulations will provide a  greater  amount of information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes.

This has no impact on the author's prediction -- remember, he/she doesn't care whether computer simulations ACTUALLY will become as reliable as crash tests. He/she also doesn't care WHEN this might happen. It could happen tomorrow, or in 100 years, or never. The conclusion that IF it happens, THEN manufacturers won't use crash tests, is equally valid regardless of if it actually comes to be, and what that timeline might look like.

(B) tells us that computer simulations are going to be awesome in 20 years. That's nice -- but it doesn't impact the author's conclusion. As discussed above, the timeframe of this ACTUALLY occurring is irrelevant to the author's argument.

In addition, it doesn't tell us about the conditions that the author really cares about (what would happen if computer simulations were  as good  as crash tests?). Instead, it gives us a look at a slightly altered future (computer simulations will be better than crash tests!), that provides no insight into the author's prediction.

(B) is irrelevant to the limited world that the author cares about, so (B) is out.

I hope that helps!

Nikhil · Answer

Prethinking  : The argument says that if computer simulations provide reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, then the manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes. What if there is some more information other than "effectiveness of automobile safety features" that the manufacturers obtain from actual test crashes ? If that is the case, then the manufacturers cannot completely replace actual test crashes.

Theme : X does something. Y does the same thing, so X can be replaced by Y. Here the unstated assumption is X doesn't do any additional things that Y can't do.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers.

This aligns with the prethinking. If the actual tests crash is also used to get information other than "effectiveness of safety features", then the computer simulation cannot replace actual test crash completely and number of actual test crashes will not decrease. So, this option which says there is no other information that manufacturers look in actual test crashes implies that actual test crashes can be replaced with computer simulation and strongly supports the argument.

(B) It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes.

Even if computer simulation provides high reliable information about the effectiveness than actual test crashes, the actual test crash will still be used in situations where actual test crash provides more information compared to simulation. Hence this option doesn't strongly support the argument  INCORRECT

(C) If computer simulations will soon be able to provide more information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, automobile manufacturers will soon be able to produce safer cars.

This is related information to the arguments but doesn't strengthen/weaken the argument.  INCORRECT

(D) The cost per automobile of testing and designing safety features is decreasing and will continue to decrease for the foreseeable future.

This weakens the argument. If the cost per automobile per test crash is decreasing, then the computer simulation might not replaces actual test crash and hence this option weakens the argument.  INCORRECT

(E) For years, the aviation industry has been successfully using computer simulations of airplane crashes to test the effectiveness of safety features of airplane designs.

This is unrelated information.  INCORRECT

Hence option A

ankitsaroha · Answer

B

A says that there is some extra important information (very little) that the actual test crashes provide. This supports the actual test crashes and not the computer simulations.
B supports computer simulations by saying that computer simulations might be able to provide more reliable information.
C is out of scope. We are not concerned about the production of safer cars.
D does not support the computer simulations.
E is out of scope.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using  GMAT Club Forum mobile app

GmatDaddy · Answer

If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile crashes enable computers to provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes,  then manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes  . For the costs of designing and running computer simulations are much lower than those of actual test crashes.

The Blue part is the conclusion.

Which one of the following, if true, most strongly supports the argument?

(A) Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers.
 Contender. Keep it.

(B) It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes.
 This Could be True. Hence not a Contender.

(C) If computer simulations will soon be able to provide more information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, automobile manufacturers will soon be able to produce safer cars.
 Again Could Be True. Hence not a Contender.

(D) The cost per automobile of testing and designing safety features is decreasing and will continue to decrease for the foreseeable future.
 OUt of Scope. Loose it.

(E) For years, the aviation industry has been successfully using computer simulations of airplane crashes to test the effectiveness of safety features of airplane designs.
 Totally Out of scope. Loose It.

Hence,  We have a clear winner. A

TaN1213 · Answer

BETWEEN A AND B

(A) Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers.

Doesn't say that simulation does the job better or provides more important info that does actual test. Further, it is nowhere mentioned that actual tests don't provide safety features' information properly.- INCORRECT.
 
(B) It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes. 
 This clearly gives reason why simulation tests will be used more in future. - CORRECT.
 
   Posted from my mobile device

US09 · Answer

IMO B.

If computer simulations is likely to provide more information about car crashes, then improvements in it will make manufacturers to use fewer actual crash crashes.

JS1290 · Answer

The unstated assumption is that actual car crashes do not provide any additional benefit or any useful data because if it does then further improvements in the computer simulation will be useless. Option A is this unstated assumption where it tells us that this is NOT the case.

Key point: There are two ways of strengthening an argument; one by looking for an additional fact; second by looking for an unstated assumption. The latter is a very much common pattern for the official 700 level questions. One must be on the look out for an unstated assumption on these type of questions!

Hope this helps!

Posted from my mobile device

CEdward · Answer

GMATNinja  what do you think about this one? There seems to be quite a bit of diviseness in the responses. I can see why A can be correct, but don't see clearly why B is wrong...B) still gives us reason to believe that the manufacturers WILL use far fewer actual test crashes too.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

Argument is that computer simulation in future can replace actual test crashes because a) they provide as much reliable info about safety features as test crashes and b) are much cheaper.

We have to strengthen the above argument.

(A) Apart from information about safety features, actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers. -- Keep. Supporter assumption. Eliminates the logical gap that there could be other valuable info provided by test crashes. Correct choice.

(B) It is highly likely that within the next 20 years computer simulations of automobile crashes will be able to provide a greater amount of reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features than can be provided by actual test crashes. -- Well sort of repeats the premise, which already says that comp simulation would be able to provide reliable info. "Greater amount" is not relevant to the argument since our decisioning matrix changes even if information is "equally reliable". Eliminate.

(C) If computer simulations will soon be able to provide more information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features, automobile manufacturers will soon be able to produce safer cars. -- Eliminate. Not relevant to the argument.

(D) The cost per automobile of testing and designing safety features is decreasing and will continue to decrease for the foreseeable future. -- Weakener. Eliminate.

(E) For years, the aviation industry has been successfully using computer simulations of airplane crashes to test the effectiveness of safety features of airplane designs. -- Provides an example but maybe cost of aircraft is really really high in that industry and that fact makes it incomparable to automotive industry? Eliminate in favor of A.

ravigupta2912 · Answer

My opinion - B uses "greater amount of information". It's not important for the carmaker to have greater amount of info. So long as the carmaker has equally reliable info, he will switch to computer simulation from actual testing. Also, this option repeats (sort of) the premise in so far as the premise already mentions that computer simulation can provide "as much" reliable information. We don't need "greater information" to shift. That in a way is changing the conclusion itself.

Kartikeya40 · Answer

How is (A) not out of scope? As far as I see, we are only concerned with the effectiveness of simulation to the effectiveness of car crashes.

MartyMurray · Answer

"As far as I see, we are only concerned with the effectiveness of simulation to the effectiveness of car crashes."

Exactly.

So, notice what the conclusion of the argument is:

If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile crashes enable computers to provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of  automobile safety features  as is provided by actual test crashes, then manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes.

We see that the conclusion involves a situation in which computers "provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes."

The author is arguing that, in that situation, manufacturers will use far fewer actual test crashes.

But what if crashes provide useful information on things other than safety features? In that case, the fact that "the costs of designing and running computer simulations are much lower than those of actual test crashes" might not strongly support the conclusion because manufacturers will still have reason to use test crashes - to get other useful information.

Then, (A) provides us with additional information:

(A) Apart from  information about safety features , actual test crashes provide very little information of importance to automobile manufacturers.

Now, we have confirmation that, in a situation in which computers "provide as much reliable information about the effectiveness of automobile safety features as is provided by actual test crashes" manufacturers will consider simulations similar to actual crashes in effectiveness since "actual test crashes provide very little information of importance" beyond what simulations provide.

So, (A) helps to confirm that the conclusion is correct.

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.

If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile

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

If future improvements to computer simulations of automobile

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