Critical Reasoning

bacchewar_prashant wrote:(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
-> Passage do not talk about the tires. Out of scope.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
-> Passage do not talk about safety inspection. Out of scope.

(C) The roads in provinces and states with stringent car safety programs are far more congested and therefore dangerous than in other provinces and states. -> Correct

(D) Psychological studies show that drivers who regularly wear seat belts often come to think of themselves as serious drivers, which for a few people discourages reckless driving.
-> Nothing to do with seat belts here.

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
-> Nothing to do withe no of kilometers

Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Hey anirudhbhalotia,

Great question - this is one of those classic "Explain the Paradox" questions in which there really isn't one conclusion, but rather two pieces of information that on the surface seem to be incompatible with each other.

Your job is to supply information that satisfies both - info that bridges the gap between the two and shows how they coexist. Ultimately, it's a lot like a Strengthen question, you're just strengthening a two-part "conclusion" that doesn't seem to be logical on its own.

Here, the two parts are:

1) Stringent requirements reduce accident rates
2) Places with more stringent requirements tend to have higher accidents-per-kilometer rates.

Just like a Strengthen question, these tend to come down to the particulars of the "conclusion" - you want to read specifically for detail in that portion of the argument. We know that these requirements reduce rates (accidents/km), but also that the places in which they exist tend to have higher rates. How can we justify that? Well, what if the rates began at an even higher point?

Choice C provides just that - a reason that these rates could have started even higher in these districts and still been reduced - they're just incredibly congested to begin with.

Choice E, as someone said, is a classic trap. The given information already locks us into "miles per kilometer", so the number of kilometers driven is already accounted for. Again - read those conclusions (or paradoxes) carefully!