Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten

Question

Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten years by all major insurance companies show that, of all cars sold, more cars of model X were stolen than cars of any other model of car. Therefore, cars of model X are the most likely of all cars to be stolen.

The reasoning of the argument is most vulnerable to criticism that the argument

A. fails to consider that the most stolen car is not necessarily the kind of car that is most likely to be stolen.

B. fails to account for the possibility that the total number of cars stolen each year has varied significantly.

C. assumes without sufficient warrant that there are not cases in which cars of model X have been stolen that have gone unreported to police or insurance companies.

D. provides support for its conclusion based in part on the presupposition that the conclusion itself is indisputable.

E. arrives at a conclusion based on a statistical pattern without explaining why that pattern exists.

Source: TTP Beta Testing

neha283 · Answer

I marked E. Can someone explain why the answer should be A?
TIA!

shubham2312 · Answer

neha283

lets take an example 
model X sells 100 cars and out of which 10 are stolen

and

model Y sells 20 cars and out of which 9 are stolen

now although most cars stolen are of model X but they are not the most likely to be stolen

neha283 · Answer

shubham2312

Good point! But consider this, model Y cars have a better security system than model X and thus thieves are able to steal model X more. In that case, an explanation of why model X are the most vulnerable to theft is needed. Hence, option (E).

GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo

saiprasanna · Answer

MartyTargetTestPrep  can you please put the OE

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Here's a quick explanation.

Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten years by all major insurance companies show that, of all cars sold, more cars of model X were stolen than cars of any other model of car. Therefore, cars of model X are the most likely of all cars to be stolen.

The reasoning of the argument is most vulnerable to criticism that the argument

A. fails to consider that the most stolen car is not necessarily the kind of car that is most likely to be stolen.

The passage mentions only that more cars of model X than cars of any other model were stolen. This information does not support the conclusion that cars of model X are the most likely to be stolen, because determining the likelihood that a car of a certain model will be stolen requires information on the proportion of cars of that model that are stolen, not just information on the absolute number of cars of that model that are stolen. Information on the absolute number of cars of a model that were stolen tells us very little about the likelihood that that car will be stolen. So, the argument is flawed because it bases the conclusion that model X is the most likely to be stolen on information that does not support that conclusion, the information model X is the most stolen.

B. fails to account for the possibility that the total number of cars stolen each year has varied significantly.

The data used to support the argument is the aggregate data from ten years. Variation from year to year does not change that data or the implications of that data.

C. assumes without sufficient warrant that there are not cases in which cars of model X have been stolen that have gone unreported to police or insurance companies.

If such cases exist, model X has been stolen even more than reports indicate it has. If it has, there is even more reason to believe that model X is the most likely to be stolen. So, assuming that there are not even more cases of cars of model X being stolen certainly is not a flaw in the support for the conclusion.

D. provides support for its conclusion based in part on the presupposition that the conclusion itself is indisputable.

The argument simply does not use this approach at all. The conclusion is based entirely on the data presented.

E. arrives at a conclusion based on a statistical pattern without explaining why that pattern exists.

It's fine to use statistical data to support a conclusion without explaining why patterns observed in that data exist. Yes, the support for the conclusion would be even stronger were the factors underlying the patterns included among the premises of the argument. All the same, it can be reasonable to base a conclusion entirely on patterns in statistical data.

The correct answer is (A).

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.

Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten

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

Police statistics, in addition to data compiled over the last ten

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