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 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 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.
22 Jul 2025, 22:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
85%
(hard)
Question Stats:
43% (01:36) correct
57%
(02:00)
wrong
based on 188
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.
Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?
(A) Comparing the number of fatalities separately for drivers and for pedestrians
(B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
(C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
(D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
(E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years
Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?
(A) Comparing the number of fatalities separately for drivers and for pedestrians
(B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
(C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
(D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
(E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years
22 Jul 2025, 23:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
This argument is based on classic percentage-absolute numbers trap.
(A) Comparing the number of fatalities separately for drivers and for pedestrians
Doesn't matter, the argument is based on comparison between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing number of fatalities between drivers and pedestrians won't help.
(B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
Helpful to expose flaw, the argument will break down if someone comes and says 4736 people died out of 100k whereas 4810 died out of 10k. We have to compare percentages for a proper apple to apple comparison.
(C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
Doesn't matter, the argument is based on comparison between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing number of fatalities between motorcyclists of California and nationwide won't help.
(D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
Doesn't matter, this won't expose the flaw, it will just do further calculation.
(E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years
Doesn't matter, the argument is for 2006 comparison only between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing 2006 with previous years' stats won't help us.
(A) Comparing the number of fatalities separately for drivers and for pedestrians
Doesn't matter, the argument is based on comparison between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing number of fatalities between drivers and pedestrians won't help.
(B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
Helpful to expose flaw, the argument will break down if someone comes and says 4736 people died out of 100k whereas 4810 died out of 10k. We have to compare percentages for a proper apple to apple comparison.
(C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
Doesn't matter, the argument is based on comparison between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing number of fatalities between motorcyclists of California and nationwide won't help.
(D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
Doesn't matter, this won't expose the flaw, it will just do further calculation.
(E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years
Doesn't matter, the argument is for 2006 comparison only between driver/pedestrian and motorcyclist so comparing 2006 with previous years' stats won't help us.
02 Aug 2025, 16:00
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
In 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California. That year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide. Officials in the Department of Transportation hypothesized that in 2006, it was not much safer to be a driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA.
Which of the following investigations is most likely to expose a logical flaw in the above hypothesis?
(A) Comparing the number of fatalities separately for drivers and for pedestrians
Incorrect.
In this variation of Investigation questions, you are required to find which method of investigation will be most useful in evaluating the officials' conclusion. To do so, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are factual - premises. The last sentence contains the phrase hypothesized that, telling us that it is the statement we should be evaluating:
Premise: in 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California
+
Premise: in the same year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide
=
Officials' Hypothesis: it was not much safer being driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA
Relevant Investigation: ?
The correct answer is a method of investigation which could discredit the hypothesis depending on its outcome, i.e., an investigation that tests the most crucial factor.
The hypothesis draws a comparison between two groups whereas this answer choice compares members of the first group only, treating it as two distinct groups: one of drivers and the other of pedestrians.
Separating the drivers from the pedestrians would not help us discredit the hypothesis since the hypothesis addresses them as one group - drivers and pedestrians in California.
(B) Comparing the number of casualties in each group per 1,000 people, instead of the total number of casualties
The hypothesis discusses how safe it is to be a member of a group or in other words - what are the chances of a member of a group to die in an accident. To compare chances, we need not only the number of deaths but also the size of the groups (4000 deaths in a group of 4000 is 100%, 4000 deaths in a group of 200,000 is 2%).
If we compare the number of deaths (casualties) in each group per 1000 people in the group we will get a ratio or chance that is comparable, such as 0.2 per 1000 or 52 per 1000. If these ratios for Californians and motorcyclists nationwide are similar then the hypothesis is true; otherwise, it's false. Either way, this is the best method for finding out.
(C) Comparing the number of fatalities in Californian motorcycle accidents to the number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents nationwide
Incorrect.
In this variation of Investigation questions, you are required to find which method of investigation will be most useful in evaluating the officials' conclusion. To do so, first break down the argument. The first two sentences are factual - premises. The last sentence contains the phrase hypothesized that, telling us that it is the statement we should be evaluating:
Premise: in 2006, there were 4,736 fatalities caused by road accidents in California
+
Premise: in the same year, there were 4,810 deaths caused by motorcycle accidents nationwide
=
Officials' Hypothesis: it was not much safer being driver or a pedestrian in California than it was to be a motorcyclist anywhere in the USA
Relevant Investigation: ?
The correct answer is a method of investigation which could discredit the hypothesis depending on its outcome, i.e., an investigation that tests the most crucial factor.
The hypothesis compares two different groups (Californians and motorcyclists in the USA) but this answer choice suggest comparing the second group (motorcyclists in the USA) with a subgroup of itself (motorcyclists in California).
Logically, the result can only be that there are more deaths among Californian motorcyclists than there are among motorcyclists in the entire country (as one includes the other). However, this doesn't help us establish which is safer - being a Californian or being a motorcyclist in the USA.
(D) Calculating the ratio between the fatality totals in both groups
Incorrect.
Calculate the ratio between the fatality totals: 4,736 / 4,801 is roughly 1, which means these are similar numbers but nothing more. It is true that this similarity may have led the author to confuse total numbers with rates, but that still doesn't disprove the hypothesis.
Remember, this is not an Argument Flaw question. You are looking for an answer choice which can help prove or disprove the hypothesis depending on its results.
(E) Comparing the 2006 statistics with statistics of previous years
Incorrect.
Since the hypothesis relates only to 2006, looking at data from previous years would not help discredit it (all it can do is prove 2006 was a relatively accident-prone or accident-free year).
Try to pinpoint the illogical aspect of the hypothesis. There is a significant difference between the two groups that makes the hypothesis based on this comparison flawed.
