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 2512:30 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 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 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
12 Jan 2019, 01:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
E
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
37% (01:29) correct
63%
(01:41)
wrong
based on 1221
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that
(A) highway traffic has not increased over the past year.
(B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit.
(C) there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents.
(D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old.
(E) the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high.
The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that
(A) highway traffic has not increased over the past year.
(B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit.
(C) there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents.
(D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old.
(E) the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high.
05 Feb 2019, 05:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
KaranB1
- A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit
- There have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year.
Conclusion - Speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
We are looking for an assumption (takes for granted...)
(A) highway traffic has not increased over the past year.
We don't need to assume that. Number of fatalities has gone down. If highway traffic has increased and number of fatalities has gone down, our conclusion makes just a little more sense.
(B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit.
We don't need majority to obey the speed limit. Our conclusion is "Speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities". Even if the fatalities have been reduced by a small amount, we can say that speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
(C) there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents.
This brings in a third variable - automobile accidents. We don't need any relation between driving speed and number of accidents. The argument talks about driving speed and number of fatalities. Ignore.
(D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old.
We don't know how strictly old or new speed limits were enforced. Even if new speed limits were not more strictly enforced, number of fatalities could have gone down.
(E) the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high.
Yes, this is an assumption. Let's negate it. If the number of traffic fatalities in the year before were abnormally high (higher than normal), the reduction could have just been re-adjustment. It needn't be the effect of lower speed limit.
2015 - 98 fatalities
2016 - 100 fatalities
2017 - 300 fatalities (abnormally high due to any reason)
Decreased speed limit ->
2018 - 102 fatalities
Can we say that decreased speed limit caused it? No.
Answer (E)
22 Jan 2019, 09:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
A year ago the government reduced the highway speed limit, and in the year since, there have been significantly fewer highway fatalities than there were in the previous year. Therefore, speed limit reduction can reduce traffic fatalities.
The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that
This is telling us that the argument is taking something for granted (assuming something to be true) and we need to figure out what the argument is assuming.
Boil it down-The argument is flawed in that it mistakes a correlation between two events for a causal one. The argument took for granted that something else did not cause the reduction in the number of traffic fatalities.
(A) highway traffic has not increased over the past year. -Incorrect; states the opposite of what it should. Increasing highway traffic would increase the risk of traffic accidents.
(B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit. -Incorrect; need not be true. The reduced highway speed limit could have reduced highway fatalities even if only some people had obeyed the new speed limit.
(C) there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents.- Incorrect; Why do we need to assume any connection between the speed limit and the number of accidents? Couldn't it be the case that the reduced highway speed doesn't reduce the number of accidents, but it does reduce the severity of those accidents so that more people survive them.
(D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old. - Incorrect; The new speed limit could have been equally enforced as the old speed limit and yet the new speed limit could still have reduced the number of highway traffic fatalities.
(E) the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high. - Correct; eliminates a possible alternative explanation for why there was a reduction in the number of highway traffic fatalities.
Answer E
A nice analogy to illustrate option E(found in MGMAT forum)-
One night, Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in a basketball game (though his average is about 30 points per game). If he scored 30 points the following night, we could say that he scored fewer points than he did the previous game.
Say he wore a new pair of shoes for the 30 point game. Would we say, "Ah, clearly wearing a new pair of shoes can decrease how many points Kobe scores"?
We could, but we could also just say "the new shoes didn't do anything wrong. This is an average, normal game. It's the 81 point game that needs an explanation. THIS game doesn't need one."
That's the way that (E) is hurting the argument. You wouldn't give new speed limits "causal credit" if the fatality number came back to average.
(In statistics, this is called a natural "regression to the mean")
After an outlier data point, you're going to naturally see subsequent data points that are closer to the average. This drift doesn't need an explanation beyond the law of averages.
The argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that it takes for granted that
This is telling us that the argument is taking something for granted (assuming something to be true) and we need to figure out what the argument is assuming.
Boil it down-The argument is flawed in that it mistakes a correlation between two events for a causal one. The argument took for granted that something else did not cause the reduction in the number of traffic fatalities.
(A) highway traffic has not increased over the past year. -Incorrect; states the opposite of what it should. Increasing highway traffic would increase the risk of traffic accidents.
(B) the majority of drivers obeyed the new speed limit. -Incorrect; need not be true. The reduced highway speed limit could have reduced highway fatalities even if only some people had obeyed the new speed limit.
(C) there is a relation between driving speed and the number of automobile accidents.- Incorrect; Why do we need to assume any connection between the speed limit and the number of accidents? Couldn't it be the case that the reduced highway speed doesn't reduce the number of accidents, but it does reduce the severity of those accidents so that more people survive them.
(D) the new speed limit was more strictly enforced than the old. - Incorrect; The new speed limit could have been equally enforced as the old speed limit and yet the new speed limit could still have reduced the number of highway traffic fatalities.
(E) the number of traffic fatalities the year before the new speed limit was introduced was not abnormally high. - Correct; eliminates a possible alternative explanation for why there was a reduction in the number of highway traffic fatalities.
Answer E
A nice analogy to illustrate option E(found in MGMAT forum)-
One night, Kobe Bryant scored 81 points in a basketball game (though his average is about 30 points per game). If he scored 30 points the following night, we could say that he scored fewer points than he did the previous game.
Say he wore a new pair of shoes for the 30 point game. Would we say, "Ah, clearly wearing a new pair of shoes can decrease how many points Kobe scores"?
We could, but we could also just say "the new shoes didn't do anything wrong. This is an average, normal game. It's the 81 point game that needs an explanation. THIS game doesn't need one."
That's the way that (E) is hurting the argument. You wouldn't give new speed limits "causal credit" if the fatality number came back to average.
(In statistics, this is called a natural "regression to the mean")
After an outlier data point, you're going to naturally see subsequent data points that are closer to the average. This drift doesn't need an explanation beyond the law of averages.
