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 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.
09 Dec 2023, 03:07
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
95%
(hard)
Question Stats:
50% (01:48) correct
50%
(02:28)
wrong
based on 1004
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
Screenshot 2023-12-09 153455.png [ 1.17 MiB | Viewed 12451 times ]
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.
Attachment:
Screenshot 2023-12-09 153455.png [ 1.17 MiB | Viewed 12451 times ]
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 →
12 Feb 2024, 14:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
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!
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
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
General Discussion
09 Dec 2023, 03:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
gmatophobia
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.
