Two years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terri

Question

Two years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terribilia was 345. Last year, the number increased to 435 people. We can conclude that the number of people involved in car accidents is on an upward trend and the number will be even higher this year.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the above conclusion?

(A) Last year, Terribilia experienced its first ever chain accident, in which almost a hundred people were involved.

(B) The number of people involved in car accidents in Terribilia has been steadily increasing over the past decade.

(C) Three years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terriblia was 521.

(D) 58% of the people who were involved in car accidents last year in Terribilia sustained minor injuries only.

(E) The number of people involved in work-related accidents in Terriblia has remained the same in the past two years.

yashikaaggarwal · Answer

Two years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terribilia was 345. Last year, the number increased to 435 people. We can conclude that the number of people involved in car accidents is on an upward trend and the number will be even higher this year.

Two years back the people involved in car accident cases were 345
Last year, the people involved in car accident cases were 435.
This year accident cases will be higher. (The conclusion)

The statement streghthening the conclusion is

(A) Last year, Terribilia experienced its first ever chain accident, in which almost a hundred people were involved.
(If 100 out of 435 were in same accident, that means the no. Of cases at the most will be 336 which means there were few cases of car accident than last to last year, which is weakening the argument) (incorrect)

(B) The number of people involved in car accidents in Terribilia has been steadily increasing over the past decade. ( can be the rmsteady reason to show that the graph is increasing from past decade) ((((could Be the reason))))

(C) Three years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terriblia was 521.(this shows the no. of people involved in car accident decreased next year so no confirmation regarding the accident will increase this year or not) (incorrect)

(D) 58% of the people who were involved in car accidents last year in Terribilia sustained minor injuries only.
(This is weaking the argument as its showing that the majority people suffer minor injuries only, which means this year car accident cases could also result in minor injuries) (incorrect)

(E) The number of people involved in work-related accidents in Terriblia has remained the same in the past two years.(nothing mentioned regarding work related injuries, invalid) (Incorrect)

IMO B

Posted from my mobile device

Anshurana · Answer

(A) Last year, Terribilia experienced its first ever chain accident, in which almost a hundred people were involved. --  First ever chain accident cannot help us prove that the number of accidents will continue to increase --  OUT

(B) The number of people involved in car accidents in Terribilia has been steadily increasing over the past decade. --   CORRECT  , its showing accidents are increasing and there is a upward trend in accidents

(C) Three years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terriblia was 521.--  This is a kind of weakener because it is showing that 3 yrs ago number of accidents were more and from argument if you see 2 yrs ago accidents were 345, its showing that accidents trend went in downward direction --  OUT

(D) 58% of the people who were involved in car accidents last year in Terribilia sustained minor injuries only.-- Minor injuries cannot explain the accident trend --  OUT

(E) The number of people involved in work-related accidents in Terriblia has remained the same in the past two years.-- Argument is not concerned about work related accident -  OUT OF SCOPE

IanStewart · Answer

This is nothing like a real GMAT CR question. For one thing, the argument in the stem has essentially no support. It looks at two numbers, and infers a trend. If you're willing to infer a trend from two numbers, you'll find trends 100% of the time - two numbers either increase, decrease, or stay the same. In every case, you'd think there's a trend, even if the numbers were generated randomly.

So all we really have from the stem is a claim: accidents are increasing. We want to strengthen that claim, and the right answer, B, says, essentially, "accidents are increasing". Naturally that "strengthens" the conclusion, since it precisely is the conclusion. That doesn't happen in real GMAT CR questions; in a real question, we'd find some explanation of  why  accidents might continue to increase. Maybe they're devoting fewer and fewer police hours to enforcing speed limits, or maybe traffic signs are falling over and aren't being replaced, or maybe the roads are deteriorating and aren't being fixed. Those are the kinds of answers I'd expect in a real question, information that would make us more certain the increase will continue. There's really no way to be sure of the prediction in the stem here, that accidents will continue to increase - why are we sure we aren't at a plateau?

So I don't think the question is worthwhile, but the only candidate answer is B. If A is true, and some fluke "chain accident" accounts for the big increase last year, we wouldn't have reason to think there's an upward trend. C suggests that accident numbers are going up and down, so contradicts the predicted trend. Injuries and work-related accidents are completely irrelevant so D and E are also wrong.

Two years ago, the number of people involved in car accidents in Terri

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

My Rewards