BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

SUV

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 am
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:710

SUV

by rahulg83 » Sun May 10, 2009 3:31 am
SUVs have become extremely popular because of the robust and energetic image they project. although these vehicles look sturdy, they are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinary passenger cars. Consequently, a high-impact collision involving both a passenger car and a SUV is much more likely to injure the latter and not the former.

Each of the following strengthens the argument EXCEPT

A) Those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must.

B) SUVs have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision

C) The government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in al passenger cars

D) SUVs are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate

E) People who drive SUVs are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seat belts.


OA after discussion.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Sun May 10, 2009 4:19 am
would go for D. all other choices strengthen the argument that SUVS are likey to be injured in high-impact collisions

A. SUVs are subjected to very few govt. imposed safety standards, so their designers are not inclined to make them => SUVS are likely to be more unsafe=> more likey to be injured

B. more susceptible to turning over in a collision=more likey to be injured

C. if govt standards are more rigorous for passenger cars, then they are safer

D. correct, IMO. if ability to acclerate is affected for SUVs, it does not make them more likey to be injured in a collision

E. if SUV drivers have a false sense of security and compromise on safety measures, SUV passengers are more likely to be injured in collisions
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Sun May 10, 2009 7:43 pm
Narrowed down to - D, E

I would guess on D, E seems to be a contender because it talks about lack of sense of security in drivers, and this has nothing to do with Government safety norms.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 8:41 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:2 members

by anshulseth » Sun May 10, 2009 11:04 pm
I would go with C

The premise is that SUV's are less safer.
If govt "The government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in al passenger cars", then there is no reason to say that SUV's are less safer. They are equally prone to accidents as other cars, and thus this doesn't strengthen the arg.
Asset
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:57 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by thetrystero » Sun May 10, 2009 11:13 pm
SUVs have become extremely popular because of the robust and energetic image they project. although these vehicles look sturdy, they are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinary passenger cars. Consequently, a high-impact collision involving both a passenger car and a SUV is much more likely to injure the latter and not the former.

Each of the following strengthens the argument EXCEPT

A) Those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must.

B) SUVs have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision

C) The government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in al passenger cars

D) SUVs are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate

E) People who drive SUVs are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seat belts.
situation:
1. SUVs are subject to only a few of the safety standards imposed on cars.
2. therefore, in a collision involving a car and an SUV, the SUV will be more badly damaged.

we want statements that'll favor the SUV getting totalled while leaving the car unscathed.

A,B, E clearly puts the SUV at a disadvantage, either due to lax standards or the SUV's image.. C makes the car stronger, so it strengthens the argument.


Answer is D by elimination.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:16 pm
Thanked: 9 times
GMAT Score:730

by mikeCoolBoy » Mon May 11, 2009 12:27 am
I go with E because the argument only talks about cars not the passengers of the cars.

if people who drive SUVs neglect to wear their seat belts this will mean that they will get injured but we don't know if the SUVs gets more injure than the other car.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:25 pm

by criszerriny » Tue May 12, 2009 6:15 am
I would go with D, as it is the only one that does not strengthen the conclusion that SUV are more dangerous than cars.......Whats the OA?
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 575
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:58 am
Location: India
Thanked: 18 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:710

by rahulg83 » Tue May 12, 2009 10:57 am
OA is D


But...
E) People who drive SUVs are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seat belts.
I am still not convinced how this could not be the answer. does false sense of security signifies anything here? In weaken question, do we necessarily have to weaken the conclusion? We can refute the underline assumption also, i suppose. This choice says that SUVs are more damage prone not because of government standards but because of negligence shown by drivers. Is this reasoning wrong?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 10:57 pm
Thanked: 3 times

by thetrystero » Tue May 12, 2009 7:14 pm
rahulg83 wrote:OA is D


But...
E) People who drive SUVs are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seat belts.
I am still not convinced how this could not be the answer. does false sense of security signifies anything here? In weaken question, do we necessarily have to weaken the conclusion? We can refute the underline assumption also, i suppose. This choice says that SUVs are more damage prone not because of government standards but because of negligence shown by drivers. Is this reasoning wrong?
@rahulg83: I was thrown by E as well. I wasn't comfortable doing so, but I forced myself to look at the first sentence as a factor as well i.e. that the SUV passengers are more injury prone because of two factors:
1. lax government standards
2. the "image" of safety projected by the SUV.

Hence, I attributed the the "false sense of security" to factor 2.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 11:55 pm

Re: SUV

by Minheequang » Sat May 16, 2009 1:10 am
IMO D

SUVs have become extremely popular because of the robust and energetic image they project. although these vehicles look sturdy, they are subject to only a small fraction of the safety standards the government imposes on ordinary passenger cars. Consequently, a high-impact collision involving both a passenger car and a SUV is much more likely to injure the latter and not the former.

Each of the following strengthens the argument EXCEPT

A) Those who design vehicles are inclined to make them safe only if government rules dictate that they must --> strengthen: cars is safer than SUV because they are imposed by safety laws, while SUVs are not

B) SUVs have a higher center of gravity, which makes them more susceptible to turning over in a collision -->strengthen

C) The government rigorously enforces its standards for maximum roof strength and impact resistance in al passenger cars -->strengthen

D) SUVs are less aerodynamic than passenger cars, and this extra bulk hinders their ability to accelerate -->acceleration poses no influence to the argument -->the best

E) People who drive SUVs are often instilled with a false sense of security and therefore neglect to wear their seat belts -->strengthen. drivers of SUVs tends to be more careless, thereby suffering more injuries
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 11:14 am

by Brad.C » Sun May 15, 2016 6:50 am
Answer D seems to be logical one out of other answer choices
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1