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.
May 0312:30 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.
04 Sep 2014, 07:31
Kudos
Bookmarks
I'm having trouble with CR and need some guidance. A case in point would be CR #24 in the VR 15 book. Here's the argument:
Premise: PZ 1000 has fewest injuries per accident of any car in its class.
Conclusion: PZ 1000 is one of the safest cars.
Question: What statement, if true, would weaken the argument?
Correct Answer: Cars in PZ's class are more likely to get into accidents than other types of cars.
Here's my issue: My brain tells me that this answer would strengthen the argument. Why? Well, if the class of cars to which the PZ belongs is the most accident prone, yet the PZ has the fewest injuries per accident of any car in this class, then the PZ would indeed be one of the safest cars.
What am I doing wrong here? I must be reading too much into the problem and bringing in info that isn't warranted. Is it the case that the GMAT is implying that simply being involved in an accident is inherently unsafe? My brain says "not necessarily". Just because a class of car is involved in more accidents doesn't make the car itself unsafe. If it protects people, then it is safe (I mean, isn't that a prerequisite for car safety?).
Grrr. I find CR logic to be weird...
Help!
Thanks in advance for the help
Premise: PZ 1000 has fewest injuries per accident of any car in its class.
Conclusion: PZ 1000 is one of the safest cars.
Question: What statement, if true, would weaken the argument?
Correct Answer: Cars in PZ's class are more likely to get into accidents than other types of cars.
Here's my issue: My brain tells me that this answer would strengthen the argument. Why? Well, if the class of cars to which the PZ belongs is the most accident prone, yet the PZ has the fewest injuries per accident of any car in this class, then the PZ would indeed be one of the safest cars.
What am I doing wrong here? I must be reading too much into the problem and bringing in info that isn't warranted. Is it the case that the GMAT is implying that simply being involved in an accident is inherently unsafe? My brain says "not necessarily". Just because a class of car is involved in more accidents doesn't make the car itself unsafe. If it protects people, then it is safe (I mean, isn't that a prerequisite for car safety?).
Grrr. I find CR logic to be weird...
Help!
Thanks in advance for the help
05 Sep 2014, 23:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
The answer choice weakens the argument because it brings in a new idea to change our perspective. For now, let's ignore the difference between "fewest injuries" and "safest." (That's a separate issue that doesn't end up getting addressed in the problem.) Basically, we're told that the car is the safest in its class. That makes it sound pretty safe!
Then the answer choice comes along and tells us that the class this car is in is not very safe. Imagine that I told you that I graduated at the top of my class, but then you found out that I was in a school full of lazy fools. This would not be very impressive! Or imagine that I told you that the cookie I was eating was the most fattening cookie made by Bakery X, but then you found out that Bakery X only made diet foods. The cookie still probably wouldn't be very fattening!
Do you get the idea? We're saying that the car is the safest in a class of not-very-safe cars. The conclusion is trying to say that it is one of the safest cars on the market, but now we know that it still might be a lot more dangerous than other cars in other classes. This makes us question the conclusion. If the conclusion were only about that one class, then we'd have a more reasonable argument.
Does that make sense?
Then the answer choice comes along and tells us that the class this car is in is not very safe. Imagine that I told you that I graduated at the top of my class, but then you found out that I was in a school full of lazy fools. This would not be very impressive! Or imagine that I told you that the cookie I was eating was the most fattening cookie made by Bakery X, but then you found out that Bakery X only made diet foods. The cookie still probably wouldn't be very fattening!
Do you get the idea? We're saying that the car is the safest in a class of not-very-safe cars. The conclusion is trying to say that it is one of the safest cars on the market, but now we know that it still might be a lot more dangerous than other cars in other classes. This makes us question the conclusion. If the conclusion were only about that one class, then we'd have a more reasonable argument.
Does that make sense?
