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 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.
Apr 2912:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Apr 3001:30 AM EDT
-02:30 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.
May 0111:00 AM PDT
-12:00 PM PDT
Free- full-length test + 15 concept videos + 150+ short videos + study plan!
May 0306:30 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Verbal trouble on GMAT? Fix it NOW! Join Sunita Singhvi for a focused webinar on actionable strategies to boost your Verbal score and take your performance to the next level.
11 Oct 2021, 05:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
65%
(hard)
Question Stats:
62% (02:00) correct
38%
(02:09)
wrong
based on 529
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
The number of serious traffic accidents (accidents resulting in hospitalization or death) that occurred on Park Road from 1986 to 1990 was 35 percent lower than the number of serious accidents from 1981 to 1985. The speed limit on Park Road was lowered in 1986. Hence, the reduction of the speed limit led to the decrease in serious accidents.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
(A) The number of speeding tickets issued annually on Park Road remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
(B) Beginning in 1986, police patrolled Park Road much less frequently than in 1985 and previous years.
(C) The annual number of vehicles using Park Road decreased significantly and steadily from 1981 to 1990.
(D) The annual number of accidents on Park Road that did not result in hospitalization remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
(E) Until 1986 accidents were classified as “serious” only if they resulted in an extended hospital stay.
Which one of the following statements, if true, most weakens the argument?
(A) The number of speeding tickets issued annually on Park Road remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
(B) Beginning in 1986, police patrolled Park Road much less frequently than in 1985 and previous years.
(C) The annual number of vehicles using Park Road decreased significantly and steadily from 1981 to 1990.
(D) The annual number of accidents on Park Road that did not result in hospitalization remained roughly constant from 1981 to 1990.
(E) Until 1986 accidents were classified as “serious” only if they resulted in an extended hospital stay.
16 Oct 2021, 05:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
No. This argument says, “There’s a correlation, therefore there has to be causation.” (A happened in proximity to B, therefore A must have caused B.) This is one of the two most common flaws that are tested on the LSAT. I can see this one coming a mile away.
To weaken this argument, I’m ideally looking for an answer that provides an alternative explanation of what caused B. I want an answer that says, “It wasn’t the lowering of the speed limit that caused the reduction in serious accidents, it was something else.” Anything else will do. Let’s scout for that first, before considering other attacks.
A) Huh? No. We need an alternative explanation. This isn’t an alternative explanation.
B) Same explanation as A.
C) This could be it. If this is true, then maybe the reduction in accidents was caused by the fact that people just aren’t using the road any more. If that’s true, then there would be fewer accidents regardless if the speed limit was kept the same, or lowered, or raised for that matter. This is exactly what we were dreaming of.
D) Irrelevant. The argument was about accidents that did result in hospitalizations. Accidents that did not result in hospitalizations are beside the point.
E) If this is true, then it makes it even more likely that the speed limit did have a helpful effect on traffic accidents, because after 1986, there should have been more accidents classified as “serious,” when in fact there were fewer, which points to a beneficial result from the speed limit change. We wanted to weaken the idea that the speed limit caused the accident reduction, so this is out.
Our answer is C.
08 Aug 2025, 06:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
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.
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.
