Actions such as adjusting your radio station, tape, and CD player that

Question

Actions such as adjusting your radio station, tape, and CD player that involve focusing on the car stereo can be dangerous distractions while driving. According to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, inserting a compact disc in a car stereo makes a driver six times more likely to get involved in an accident than glancing at the fuel gauge does. Hence, analysts recommend that a fine should be imposed on drivers caught focusing on the car stereo while driving. While making this recommendation, the information that, of course, must have been considered is that ______________________.

(A) Fuel gauge makers pay tax to the central and state governments.
(B) The number of casualties in accidents caused due to inserting a CD will reduce if the government imposes a fine on drivers who are distracted while driving.
(C) Drivers who are caught checking their fuel gauge should also be charged a similar fine.
(D) There have been proven reports of accidents as a result of people attempting to insert a CD.
(E) The imposed fine would be significant enough to deter people from focusing on the car stereo while driving.

Abhishek009 · Accepted Answer

Accidents------------> Focusing of Car Stereo

(A) Out of scope 
(B) ISWAT (Stimulus talks about getting involved in accidents and answer option talks about no of casualties)
(C) Irrelevant 
(D) The option is a mere restatement of the following lines " According to the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, inserting a compact disc in a car stereo makes a driver six times more likely to get involved in an accident than glancing at the fuel gauge does. "
(E) Must be true, negating this option shatters the entire conclusion...

Rickooreo · Answer

egmat   KarishmaB

Can you please share your analysis of this questions

Rickooreo · Answer

How to eliminate opiton B and how to analyse this question

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

• The argument is about car radio functions in general. The use of CDs isn't addressed separately from other functions of car radios.

• The argument talks about danger, but doesn't mention casualties. We don't even know whether there are any casualties here.

Anousheka · Answer

How did you eliminate option D?

Posted from my mobile device

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

The first observation about choice B, above, actually takes care of choice D as well:

Remember, the problem doesn't just ask for something that would strengthen or weaken an argument; it's asking for something that   MUST   be considered. 
The argument is about ALL interactions between drivers and their cars' music systems, taken together in aggregate. The argument does not make any distinctions among the different types of interactions (e.g., inserting a CD is one type of interaction), so, absolutely nothing specifically about ONE type of interaction  must  be considered. 
This observation is grounds for elimination of both B and D.

KarishmaB · Answer

Rickooreo

Argument:
Inserting a CD makes a driver 6 times more likely to get involved in an accident than glancing at fuel gauge does. 
Analysts recommend that a fine should be imposed on drivers caught focusing on the car stereo while driving
To recommend this, they must have considered that ...

Note that the comparison with the fuel gauge is just an eyewash. Focusing on car stereo is much more dangerous than glancing at fuel gauge. So a fine for focusing on car stereo is being suggested. Does it imply anything about requiring a fine for glancing at the fuel gauge. If we were given that fuel gauge glancing is more dangerous and the analysts were recommending focusing on car stereo fine, we would worry about fuel gauge fine. But in this case we will not. Hence (A) and (C) are irrelevant.

Option (B) talks about number of casualties (injured/killed) in an accident, not number of accidents. The argument is worrying about reducing the number of accidents. Hence, whether the number of casualties reduce is not relevant to our argument.

Option (D) is incorrect too. Something dangerous needn't have caused harm to be called dangerous. For example, we know that it is dangerous for kids to handle fireworks because of their incendiary properties. Fireworks needn't have caused incidents to be considered dangerous. A high probability of causing an incident is enough to call something dangerous. So we don't need proven reports.

Option (E) is correct. The fine needs to be significant to deter people if accidents are to be reduced. If the fine amount is very low, even imposing the fine may not improve the probability of not being in an accident.

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.

Actions such as adjusting your radio station, tape, and CD player that

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

Actions such as adjusting your radio station, tape, and CD player that

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