For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insura

Question

Advertisement:

For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insurance has gotten a rate from 2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying someone else for the same level of coverage. So clearly, if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you can be confident of this: The rate Taske offers you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay!

Which of the following, if true, points to a flaw in the argument in the advertisement?

A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage.

B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent.

C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske.

D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske.

E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years.

Show Spoiler

Attachment:

Screenshot 2023-12-09 153455.png [ 1.17 MiB | Viewed 13122 times ]

Show Answer

Official Answer

Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/Login.

Using official mocks already? Add GMAT Club Tests for harder practice, analytics, and explanations without overlapping Official Guide or official mock questions.
Try it now →

_________________

Want to discuss quant questions and strategies : Join the quant chat group today

Power of Tiny Gains

1.01^(365) = 37.78

0.99^(365) = 0.03

Signature Read More

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insurance has gotten a rate from 2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying someone else for the same level of coverage. So clearly, if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you can be confident of this: The rate Taske offers you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay!

We see that the passage presents a conclusion:

clearly, if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you can be confident of this: The rate Taske offers you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay!

The support for the conclusion is the following premise.

For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insurance has gotten a rate from 2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying someone else for the same level of coverage.

Analyzying the argument, we see the following gap:

- The premise is about what has happened for " every auto owner who has switched  to Taske Auto Insurance."

- The conclusion is about what will happen for "you," meaning, basically,  anyone insured by someone else .

Simply put,  the premise and the conclusion are about two different groups , a relatively narrow group of people who have switched versus a broad group of people insured by other companies.

Which of the following, if true, points to a flaw in the argument in the advertisement?

Since the answer choices are about new facts, rather than about the argument itself, this question works similarly to a Weaken question, and the correct answer will highlight a flaw in the argument by weakening the argument by exploiting the flaw.

A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage.

Notice that, regardless of whether Taske customers pay different rates, all of them could pay rates that are lower than other insurance companies' rates.

In other words, this choice doesn't say that some Taske customers pay rates that are not "at least 2 percent" lower than other companies' rates. It not about a comparison of rates across companies. It's about Taske rates only.

So, this choice doesn't change what we know, which is that everyone who has switched has gotten a lower rate. That fact is true regardless whether all those lower rates are the same.

Eliminate.

B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent.

While the premise mentions people getting rates "2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying," the conclusion is that "you will save you at least 2 percent."

So, the conclusion makes sense even if most people who switched to Taske "achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent." After all, "closer to 2 percent" is in line with "at least 2 percent."

So, this choice doesn't highlight any flaw in the argument.

Eliminate.

C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske.

As we saw in the beginning of this explanation, the premise is about those who have switched whereas the conclusion is about "you," meaning anyone insured by another company.

So, the premise and the conclusion are about two different groups of people, a narrow group and a broad group.

Thus, we could say that the argument is flawed in that the group in the sample may not be representive of the larger group in the conclusion. After all, it could be true that everyone who has switched got a lower rate and yet not everyone insured by another company would get a lower rate by switching.

This choice highlights that flaw by weakening the argument by confirming the difference between the sample in the premise and the broad group in the conclusion by letting us know that most people quoted rates by Taske chose not to switch.

Why would it be the case that most chose not to switch? It could very well be that the reason is that most people who get quotes from Taske don't get lower rates.

So, this choice casts doubt on the conclusion in a way that exploits or highlights a flaw in the argument.

Keep.

D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske.

If anything, this fact strengthens the argument.

After all, the fact that Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske serves to reduce the probability that you won't be able to "save at least 2 percent" because you won't be able to get the same level of coverage from Taske.

A choice that strengthens the argument doesn't highlight a flaw in the argument.

Eliminate.

E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years.

This choice has no effect on the argument. After all, the fact that Taske has been offering insurance for only five years doesn't change Taske's rates or how they compare with other companies' rates.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:  C

VivekSri · Answer

I think the flaw in the argument is that it is telling that if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay. How is this possible? This can only possible when you call and switch over the Taske insurance. The argument directly tell that you call and your 2% is saved. What if large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske. Then the argument will collapse. Hence C is the answer.

Michael909 · Answer

Premise:   Every auto owner > who switched to Taske > got 2-20% lower rate than existing one for same coverage.
...
 Conclusion:     Like everyone , if you call us then you will also save at least 2% of what you current pay. 
..
 Assumption:   Everyone who called got a favorable rate   that's why they switched to Taske  and that's why they saved at least 2% of their current pay.
..
 Flaw:    Did everybody who called, switched to Taske?   
(1) If majority switched to Taske then yes, you will surely benefit like them. (High probability) 
(2) If few switched to Taske, then you cannot be sure that you will benefit like them. (Low probability)  Not Confident

A. Different rates of different customers doesn't affect your rate.  Your saving is calculated based on your pre & post rate. So we don't need to know what rates others have to make a switch. Irrelevant.

B. Talks about people who switched and what level of their savings were.  We want to evaluate outcomes of all the people who called and got offers from Taske not just those who switched. In finance, it is called avoiding a survivorship bias. So, this is an inaccurate comparison.

C. This says a large portion of people who called did not switch.  It could mean that may be most people didn't change because the rate given to them was not favorable. This option creates a doubt so this seems like a flaw.

D. Other insurers do not offer all the different types of coverage offerd by Taske.  This means that Taske has all types of coverage available so if you switch from whatever coverage, you will find the same offered by Taske so switching to Taske will be easy. Taske is the superset, others are a subset of Taske. This is a strengther.

E. Operational history of the company is limited.  This is a weakener with new information but doesn't identify the flaw by attacking the assumption. So, this is irrelevant.

Therefore,  option C is the correct answer.

sachi-in · Answer

Prethinking : There is an apparent flaw / discrepancy. They say people who switched received lower rates, not those who called. It's possible those who called didn't receive low rates but only some among them who received lower rate switched. A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage. Doesn't explain the discrepancy / flaw mentioned. It's likely they have different rates some get 2 some get 20%. B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent. Doesn't explain the discrepancy / flaw mentioned. C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske. perfectly explain the discrepancy in pre-thinking, maybe only a small portion were offered lower rates that's why they moved to Taske ( that explains the lower rates for people who switched but the rates for people who just called was not lower enough ) D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske. We are considering only those that offer comparable offers. E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years. Time span is irrelevant Screenshot 2023-12-09 153455.png

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument -
For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insurance has gotten a rate from 2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying someone else for the same level of coverage. - Background Info. It talks about the people who shifted to Taske and have been getting 2 to 20% less rate. What about the people who did not switch? We don't know. What about the percentage of those who apply to make the shift? 1% or 99%? We don't know.

So clearly, if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you can be confident of this: The rate Taske offers you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay - Conclusion. It's a generalised conclusion. The premise talks about the subset of people who shifted. Say this number out of all who apply is 1%. Maybe 99% don't get the favorable rate because the rate is decided based on many other factors such as your credit history, income continuity, yearly income, etc. While the premise talks about the 1%, and the conclusion talks about the remaining 99%. This is a classic insufficient representation. The conclusion talks about practically anyone who applies (say 99%), but the premise talks about those who have shifted (say 1%). There is no data or representation about the rest, 99%, while the conclusion is about them.

Which of the following, if true, points to a flaw in the argument in the advertisement?

A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage. - "Current Taske customers" are out of scope.

B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent. - "The people who switched to Taske" are out of scope.

C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske. - "A large proportion" says the 99% didn't shift. Why? Maybe it was because they didn't get the competitive rate. This highlights the flaw in the argument.

D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske. - Strengthener.

E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years. - duration is out of scope.

muddassirmoolji · Answer

My doubt here is that the passage States that if you call taske, you can be confident that the rate Offered to you will be at least 2% less than what you currently pay.

The advertisement clearly states that if you call us, we will offer you the stated rates. Never did it imply that if you call us, you will 100% switch to us.

In Option C, the reason for a caller to not switch to Taske could be anything other than a favorable rate like reputation, trust, features e.t.c.

This does not directly mean that you will not get the promised rate if you decide to switch

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm: This is a case of sampling bias. Upon reading the argument, the logic looks sound. For 5 years, everyone who has switched to Taske has got 2 to 20% less than what they paid previously. So if you are with someone else and you call Taske for a quote, you will get a quote with minimum 2% saving. Sounds reasonable. So off to the options. A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage. Within Taske everyone doesn't pay the same is irrelevant. The point is that you will pay less than what you paid before. Whether others in Taske are paying more than you or less than you has no bearing on the argument. B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent. The argument only promises 'at least 2%'. No promises of anything higher so this is irrelevant. C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske. Here is the flaw which may not have been apparent. It opens up the possibility that if you ask Taske for a quote, you may not get a 2% off your current plan. Many people who got a quote never switched. So it is likely that those people got a quote of 0% off or a price even higher than what they were paying at that time. The people who actually switched to Taske were the ones who got the lower quotes. So basically for the claim, the ad has used a biased sample - people who switched. It is understandable that they would have got lower quotes and that is why they switched. So can we say that everyone gets quotes lower than what they are currently paying? No. This is the flaw in the reasoning. D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske. Irrelevant. E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years. Irrelevant. Answer (C) Discussion on Flaw in Reasoning: https://youtu.be/3s0tWn3tiT8

Kushnomics · Answer

Answer: C

Why?
The conclusion of the ad is:

If you're insured by someone else and call Taske, you'll definitely save at least 2%.

This conclusion is based on only the people who actually switched to Taske.

But what if many people called Taske, got a quote, but didn’t switch because the quote wasn’t lower?

That’s exactly what option C points out:

“A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted rates by Taske chose not to switch.”

This weakens the argument by showing that:

The sample (only those who switched) is biased.

The conclusion about "you’ll definitely save" doesn’t apply to everyone.

kartickdey · Answer

I have doubt regarding option A and C.
 The option C to be correct it has to be assumed that "A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske." did so because of price. But it has not been mentioned. The reason could have been something else. 
 In option A it is stated that " Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage. ". If the rates are different for different customers, then it could happen that for a prospective customer the savings might be less than 2 percent. Then it cannot be guaranteed that every customer will have at least 2% savings. 
 Please clarify my doubt.

guddo · Answer

Advertisement: 
 
For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insurance has gotten a rate from 2 to 20 percent less than what they had been paying someone else for the same level of coverage. So clearly, if you are insured by someone else and you call Taske, you can be confident of this: The rate Taske offers you will save you at least 2 percent of what you currently pay!
 
 Which of the following, if true, points to a flaw in the argument in the advertisement?

The ad takes a fact about people who actually switched and treats it as a guarantee about what rate anyone who calls will be offered. That assumes the people who switched are representative of all callers.

A. Current Taske customers with the same level of automobile insurance coverage as each other sometimes pay different rates for that coverage.

Not a flaw in the logic. Different rates across customers does not show that callers will fail to get at least 2 percent savings.

B. Of the people who switched to Taske, the vast majority achieved savings that were closer to 2 percent than to 20 percent.

Irrelevant. The claim is about saving at least 2 percent, not about how close savings are to 2 or 20.

C. A large proportion of the auto owners who were quoted auto insurance rates by Taske chose not to switch their insurance to Taske.

This points to the flaw.  If many people were  quoted  but did not switch, that suggests some quotes were not at least 2 percent cheaper than what they already had. Then the “call and you can be confident” guarantee is not supported.

D. Some of Taske's competitors do not offer all of the different levels of coverage offered by Taske.

Does not matter. The argument compares Taske’s rate to the caller’s current rate for the same coverage, not to competitors’ menu.

E. Taske has been offering automobile insurance for only five years.

Just repeats the time frame and does not expose a logical gap.

Answer: (C)

For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insura

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

For five years, every auto owner who has switched to Taske Auto Insura

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