i need an explanation

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 11:31 pm
Thanked: 42 times
Followed by:20 members

i need an explanation

by sana.noor » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:05 am
A recent report determined that although only 3 percent of drivers on Maryland highways equipped their vehicles with radar detectors, 33 percent of all vehicles ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were equipped with them. Clearly, drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.
The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are less likely to be ticketed for exceeding the speed limit than are drivers who do not.
(B) Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed.
(C) The number of vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit was greater than the number of vehicles that were equipped with radar detectors.
(D) Many of the vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report.
(E) Drivers on Maryland highways exceeded the speed limit more often than did drivers on other state
highways not covered in the report.

OA is B
i understand that why B is right but D is also very close to the answer. what one should do to choose the right answer? if their are 3% vehicles with radar and 33% of the ticketed vehicles are radar then it means that radar vehicles are getting ticket more than once. D says that many vehicles were ticketed more than once and B says that drivers who were ticketed for exceed limits likely to exceed limits regularly, thus many vehicles were ticketed more than once. so i am little confused how to choose the right option.
Work hard in Silence, Let Success make the noise.

If you found my Post really helpful, then don't forget to click the Thank/follow me button. :)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1556
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:18 pm
Thanked: 448 times
Followed by:34 members
GMAT Score:650

by theCodeToGMAT » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:31 am
Conclusion: Drivers who equip their vehicles with radar detectors are more likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who do not.

By Negation Technique
:

{D} - Hardly any vehicles that were ticketed for exceeding the speed limit were ticketed more than once in the time period covered by the report. --> So, most of the cars were ticketed once.. But, this doesn't demonstrate any regularity pattern stated in conclusion.. it is just a fact.

{B} - Drivers who are ticketed for exceeding the speed limit are LESS likely to exceed the speed limit regularly than are drivers who are not ticketed. --> This affects the regularity pattern prediction in the conclusion. - Conclusion affected
R A H U L

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 1:20 am
Thanked: 2256 times
Followed by:1535 members
GMAT Score:800

by lunarpower » Thu Oct 24, 2013 3:44 am
The point of this problem is for you to realize that "exceeds the speed limit regularly" and "ticketed for exceeding the speed limit" are not necessarily related.
The argument treats them as though they are automatically related. So, the argument is just assuming that they are related.

Analogy:
20% of people in Mississippi are poor, but 60% of people convicted of felonies in Mississippi are poor. Therefore, in Mississippi, poor people are more likely than others to commit felonies.
--> Same problem here -- there's not necessarily a direct relationship between "commit a felony" and "convicted of a felony". (What if the non-poor people can afford better lawyers, and so aren't convicted as often?)
Ron has been teaching various standardized tests for 20 years.

--

Pueden hacerle preguntas a Ron en castellano
Potete chiedere domande a Ron in italiano
On peut poser des questions à Ron en français
Voit esittää kysymyksiä Ron:lle myös suomeksi

--

Quand on se sent bien dans un vêtement, tout peut arriver. Un bon vêtement, c'est un passeport pour le bonheur.

Yves Saint-Laurent

--

Learn more about ron