• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
    Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations TAKE A FREE GMAT QUIZ
  • 7 CATs FREE!
    If you earn 100 Forum Points

    Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
    100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE

    Veritas Prep
    VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS
    Earn 10 Points Per Post
    Earn 10 Points Per Thanks
    Earn 10 Points Per Upvote
    REDEEM NOW

Car Safety Requirement

This topic has 2 expert replies and 41 member replies
Goto page Next

Car Safety Requirement

Post
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.

(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.

(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.

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.

OA C powerscore LR bible

_________________
https://www.e-gmat.com/

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member
Joined
31 Jan 2010
Posted:
748 messages
Followed by:
3 members
Upvotes:
46
Facebook Logo
Post
A. Incorrect: Old car tires might or might not cause accident
B. Incorrect: this stmt opposed the safety experts belief
C. correct: this stmt supports the safety experts belief. bcz the roads are dange the accidents r more though stringent safety prg r in place
D. Incorrect: if this stmt is true then accidents must be less
E. Incorrect: We are talking abt 'average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven'. so length of roads does not matter

_________________
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blogspot.com/

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
28 Feb 2010
Posted:
232 messages
Upvotes:
10
Target GMAT Score:
750+
Post
komal wrote:
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.

(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.

(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.

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.

OA C powerscore LR bible
C solves he paradox by attributing the cause to congested roads

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Posted:
39 messages
Upvotes:
1
Test Date:
Jan-2011
Target GMAT Score:
750
Facebook Logo
Post
(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

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
24 Nov 2009
Posted:
163 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
13
Test Date:
7/8
Target GMAT Score:
760
GMAT Score:
660
Post
E = The Classic Trap Answer!

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
23 Nov 2010
Posted:
1 messages
Post
C!

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
23 Nov 2010
Posted:
123 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
5
Target GMAT Score:
800
Facebook Logo
Post
komal wrote:
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.

(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.

(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.

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.

OA C powerscore LR bible
I am not understanding whats being asked. Do we need to support the Safety Experts belief or oppose it ?

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag

GMAT/MBA Expert

GMAT Instructor
Joined
03 Jul 2008
Posted:
1031 messages
Followed by:
253 members
Upvotes:
716
GMAT Score:
750
Post
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!

_________________
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Director of Academic Programs
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
23 Nov 2010
Posted:
123 messages
Followed by:
4 members
Upvotes:
5
Target GMAT Score:
800
Facebook Logo
Post
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!
Brian, appreciate your explanation! Very helpful!

Oh boy are these normal questions for GMAT...this one totally got me off guard!

I am coming to the conclusion that there is really no "formula" to crack CR questions as each new problem brings its own reasoning along with it.

Or is there?

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
07 Jan 2010
Posted:
32 messages
Upvotes:
2
GMAT Score:
710
Facebook Logo
Post
komal wrote:
Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements, including required use of seat belts and annual safety inspections, have on average higher rates of accidents per kilometer driven than do provinces and states with less stringent requirements. Nevertheless, most highway safety experts agree that more stringent requirements do reduce accident rates.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to reconcile the safety experts’ belief with the apparently contrary evidence described above?

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.

(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.

(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.

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads then do other provinces and states.Idea Idea Arrow
Initially was in a dilemma on choosing between C and D. Then settled down with C as it is best covered by the statement above( well within the scope of the argument compared to D) . D talks about reckless driving which doesn't tell anything why the particular states have more accidents that others.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
16 Mar 2011
Posted:
19 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Upvotes:
1
Post
1. provinces and states with higher stringent car safety requirements have more accidents.
2. Safety experts agree more stringent requirements reduce the accident rates.

which on the following, if true, supports the experts ?



A. This is not related to the passage. INCORRECT
B. The point is not bout the confidence of drivers. even for drivers with confidence accidents can happen. INCORRECT.
C. The point could be true, if the congestion is more in the province/state of high stringent car safety programs the possibility of accident happening is more . CORRECT
D. This says discourages reckless driving. So this is also wrong. INCORRECT.
E. The length of road is not related to the argument. INCORRECT

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
12 Mar 2008
Posted:
152 messages
Followed by:
2 members
Upvotes:
8
Post
All you have to do is find a plausible cause for higher accident rates, that busts the link between stringent requirements and accidents. E is tempting, but the rate per kilometer would stay the same no matter how many kilometers. C wins.

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Legendary Member
Joined
31 Oct 2009
Posted:
574 messages
Followed by:
5 members
Upvotes:
29
Target GMAT Score:
750
Post
+1 to C

_________________
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
Joined
27 Oct 2010
Posted:
72 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Upvotes:
2
Post
The answer is C.

(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
This does not explain why accident rate is more despite the strict safety measures.

(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
This seems a close one but overconfidence in the driver does not mean that they drive badly and cause accident. There is no indicator for that

(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.
Explains that the roads are congested and dangerous, possible leading to more accidents despite the safety measures

(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.
irrelevant

(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
Classic trap

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
12 Aug 2010
Posted:
31 messages
Followed by:
1 members
Upvotes:
1
Facebook Logo
Post
Definitely C

  • +1 Upvote Post
  • Quote
  • Flag
  • EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • The Princeton Review
    FREE GMAT Exam
    Know how you'd score today for $0

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    The Princeton Review
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep

Top First Responders*

1 Jay@ManhattanReview 66 first replies
2 fskilnik@GMATH 50 first replies
3 Brent@GMATPrepNow 49 first replies
4 GMATGuruNY 32 first replies
5 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma... 26 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

Most Active Experts

1 image description fskilnik@GMATH

GMATH Teacher

109 posts
2 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

97 posts
3 image description Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

94 posts
4 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

83 posts
5 image description GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

78 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts