GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

It is currently 03 Jul 2020, 08:59

Close

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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burg

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
GMAT Club team member
User avatar
V
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 6208
GPA: 3.62
When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burg  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jun 2020, 23:48
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  55% (hard)

Question Stats:

65% (02:40) correct 35% (02:43) wrong based on 81 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burglarized cars for not only any physical damage to their vehicles, but also the loss of property that had been present within, victims claim nearly three times the material losses that they do when an insurer compensates only for physical damage. Because the evidence in these cases has, by definition, been stolen, there are few objective means to determine whether the victim actually incurred the material losses claimed. But these facts do not establish the conclusion most frequently drawn: that these claimed losses are generally fraudulent. Clearly, when an insurance policy does not provide compensation for items stolen from a car, people have little incentive to report such a loss.

In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

B. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.

E. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.

_________________
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 03 Jun 2020
Posts: 14
Re: When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burg  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jun 2020, 03:51
1
SajjadAhmad wrote:
When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burglarized cars for not only any physical damage to their vehicles, but also the loss of property that had been present within, victims claim nearly three times the material losses that they do when an insurer compensates only for physical damage. Because the evidence in these cases has, by definition, been stolen, there are few objective means to determine whether the victim actually incurred the material losses claimed. But these facts do not establish the conclusion most frequently drawn: that these claimed losses are generally fraudulent. Clearly, when an insurance policy does not provide compensation for items stolen from a car, people have little incentive to report such a loss.

In the argument above, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?

A. The first is a claim that the argument disputes; the second is a conclusion that has been based on that claim.

B. The first is a claim that has been used to support a conclusion that the argument accepts; the second is that conclusion.

C. The first is evidence that has been used to support a conclusion for which the argument provides further evidence; the second is the main conclusion of the argument.

D. The first is a finding whose implications are at issue in the argument; the second is a claim presented in order to argue against deriving certain implications from that finding.

E. The first is a finding whose accuracy is evaluated in the argument; the second is evidence presented to establish that the finding is accurate.



One thing that I have noticed in all CR questions is that it always has a structure. This question is with regards to that structure.
Let's break it down.
In the first two lines shares a fact with us - Victims claim nearly three times the material losses that they do when an insurer compensates only for physical damage.

In the second part of the sentence he tries to dispute the most common conclusion drawn from the above two sentences, it says since there is no evidence to know the value of the stolen goods and since 3x amount is claimed when insurer pays for stolen goods inside the car as compared to when the insurer doesn't pay for stolen goods; at first glance it seems likely that most people would believe that people are fraduently claiming for stolen goods.

The author then tries to negate this common conclusion, he says another explanation for less number of claims when stolen goods are not insured is that people have no incentive to report those since they won't be compensated.

To summarise, the author first states a claim, then he tells us what is most common implication from the facts, then he concludes by arguiing the common implication.

Let's look at the options
A - The arguement is not disputing the claim, it is disputing the implication from the claim. WRONG

B - The argument doesn't accept the conclusion, it goes on to argue against it. WRONG

C - Argument doesn't provide further evidence. WRONG

D - Self Explanatory. RIGHT

E - The passage never implies that the findings are incorrect, it says the conclusion drawn from the findings are incorrect.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burg   [#permalink] 04 Jun 2020, 03:51

When an auto insurance policy compensates the owners of stolen or burg

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  





cron

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne