C
congested and therefore, more dangerous!
BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course
Redeem
Featured Course
Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand
Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.
- 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
- 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
- 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
- 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
- 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
- TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
- 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
- OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
- Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
- MBA Admissions Consulting now available
- 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
- 200,000+ students served
- 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★
5.0
(559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start
then $127/mo
Car Safety Requirement
(A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
This further adds to the intrigue as to why there should be accidents at all.
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
This cannot explain a surge in accidents although it may contribute to a few.
(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.
The only plausible explanation
(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.
This too must prevent accidents. Having said that, it adds new information and does not really deal with the text.
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
This can mislead you into thinking, "therefore higher number of accidents than other states". But this is not true in effect. Just because there are more kms of roads, why should there be more accidents? That's like saying the US is larger than Ivory Coast, therefore there ought to be more crime.
This further adds to the intrigue as to why there should be accidents at all.
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
This cannot explain a surge in accidents although it may contribute to a few.
(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.
The only plausible explanation
(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.
This too must prevent accidents. Having said that, it adds new information and does not really deal with the text.
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
This can mislead you into thinking, "therefore higher number of accidents than other states". But this is not true in effect. Just because there are more kms of roads, why should there be more accidents? That's like saying the US is larger than Ivory Coast, therefore there ought to be more crime.
I will go with C...Am I right?
A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.-Car tires are not being talked about-Eliminated.
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.-confidence doesnt say that they cannot drive safe...
(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.-congested places makes driving difficult and less safe...The answer
(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.-not being talked about..
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.-increases in no of kilometers doesnt say that the road is not safe.
A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.-Car tires are not being talked about-Eliminated.
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.-confidence doesnt say that they cannot drive safe...
(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.-congested places makes driving difficult and less safe...The answer
(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.-not being talked about..
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.-increases in no of kilometers doesnt say that the road is not safe.
Question type: Resolve the paradox
Stimulus: States (stringent car rules) have HIGHER ACCIDENT RATE/KM than other states
BUT stringent rules are believed to reduce car accidents
Look at choices:
A,B: only explains 1 side of the paradox
C:this is the correct answer as "more congested and ... dangerous" implies a higher accident rate/km, although that rate is reduced due to the stringent rules.
D:irrelevant - "discourage" doesn't matter at all.
E: more km of roads will lead to lower accident rate/km -> don't meet the stated fact
Stimulus: States (stringent car rules) have HIGHER ACCIDENT RATE/KM than other states
BUT stringent rules are believed to reduce car accidents
Look at choices:
A,B: only explains 1 side of the paradox
C:this is the correct answer as "more congested and ... dangerous" implies a higher accident rate/km, although that rate is reduced due to the stringent rules.
D:irrelevant - "discourage" doesn't matter at all.
E: more km of roads will lead to lower accident rate/km -> don't meet the stated fact
Hi,
I am afraid that your assumption regarding the 5th choice is faulty.The passage says that the accidents per km has increased. But The choice (E) says that the road distance has increased. This should in fact reduce the no of accidents per km and does not solve the discrepancy, instead weakens the belief of the experts. Hence this is not out of scope. Its a TRAP
I am afraid that your assumption regarding the 5th choice is faulty.The passage says that the accidents per km has increased. But The choice (E) says that the road distance has increased. This should in fact reduce the no of accidents per km and does not solve the discrepancy, instead weakens the belief of the experts. Hence this is not out of scope. Its a TRAP
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
Hi Kamal,Kamal2014 wrote:Hi,
I am afraid that your assumption regarding the 5th choice is faulty.The passage says that the accidents per km has increased. But The choice (E) says that the road distance has increased. This should in fact reduce the no of accidents per km and does not solve the discrepancy, instead weakens the belief of the experts. Hence this is not out of scope. Its a TRAPbacchewar_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
Even though you understand that option E is incorrect, I think the reason (why it is incorrect) is not very clear.
The passage says that
Average rate of accident per kilometer driven is higher in provinces with stringent regulations.
As you can see, the passage is talking about number of accidents per unit of kilometer driven. So, the number of kilometers driven or number of kilometers of roads doesn't matter.
For example:
If I say that Machine X is better than Machine Y because Machine X produces more products per minute than Machine Y.
Now, in this case, would knowing the total number of minutes any machine has worked matter? No. Since, we are talking in terms of products per one minute, the total number of minutes don't matter.
Similarly, in the given question, option E which talks about number of kilometers of road is not relevant.
Also, it is important to understand here that option E does not weaken the argument; it is just irrelevant. Even though it says that the number of kilometers is higher in provinces with stringent regulations, it does not indicate that the number of accidents per km would be lower there.
Why?
Because it does not talk about number of accidents. If those provinces have higher number of accidents too, then we cannot say that they have lower accidents per km. Right?
To ace GMAT CR, while it is important that you get your answer rights, it is equally important that you get them right for the right reasons because only the right reasons can ensure your success in the actual GMAT.
I hope it helps!
Please feel free to let me know if you have any queries.
Thanks,
Chiranjeev
Register for free live sessions
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
Sentence Correction: Get 4 free video lessons, 50 practice questions
Critical Reasoning workshop: Get 4 free video lessons, 40 practice questions
Reading Comprehension: Get 2 free video lessons and 2 free eBooks
Free Strategy Session: Key strategy to score 760
Success Stories
V27 to V42 | V28 to V48 | V25 to V38 | More Success Stories
-
lulufrenchie
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 24
-
jaspreetsra
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 164
- Thanked: 1 times
My answer is C.
A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
Irrelevant
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
Irrelevant
(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.
Perfect
(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.
Out of scope
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
Not relevant
A) Annual safety inspections ensure that car tires are replaced before they grow old.
Irrelevant
(B) Drivers often become overconfident after their cars have passed a thorough safety inspection.
Irrelevant
(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.
Perfect
(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.
Out of scope
(E) Provinces and states with stringent car safety requirements have, on average, many more kilometers of roads than do other provinces and states.
Not relevant
Can you please explain me why we eliminated option E? Was it because the rate i.e. accidents/kilometer was already accounted for?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!
-
deepak4mba
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 56
- Location: London
