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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
Live EA class + 6 months of EA OnDemand
  • Expert-led weekly online sessions
  • EA Masterclass access between classes
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

130-point score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

CR - Road Accidents

Critical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension
Expert replies
by harsh.champ » Fri Feb 19, 2010 2:10 pm
Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause 'big accidents', while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in 'big' accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A. Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt
B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt
C. The ratio of 'big' to 'small' road accidents is very small
D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat
E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P
Join the discussion
Source: — Verbal Reasoning |

by thephoenix » Fri Feb 19, 2010 11:49 pm
harsh.champ wrote:Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause 'big accidents', while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in 'big' accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A. Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt
B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt
C. The ratio of 'big' to 'small' road accidents is very small
D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat
E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.
IMO E

it has to b/n A and E

B is irrelevant

c is irrelevant
d is irrelevant
e is more appropriate than a
Join the discussion

by kstv » Sun Feb 21, 2010 9:06 am
IMO A
Join the discussion

by CookieNet » Sun Feb 21, 2010 4:32 pm
IMO A

The argument focuses on whether seat-belt helps increase survival chance of driver.
Author says actually seat-belt does not help but drivers themselves do.

Only A undermines the argument presented by the author and shows that, indeed, seat-belt helps.

Others are all irrelevant.
E - the level of insurance premium does not matter to the survival chance. Though, you might think it may provide better meditation but that is too far from the scope and need further assumptions.
Join the discussion

by harsh.champ » Sun Feb 21, 2010 6:02 pm
thephoenix wrote:
harsh.champ wrote:Early data on seat-belt use showed that seat-belt wearers were less likely to be killed in road accidents. Hence, it was initially believed that wearing a seat-belt increased survival chances in an accident. But what the early analysts had failed to see was that cautious drivers were more likely to wear the belts and were also less likely to cause 'big accidents', while reckless drivers were more likely to be involved in 'big' accidents and were less likely to wear the belts.

Which of the following, if true, could an opponent of the view presented above best cite as a reason for recommending continued use of seat-belts?

A. Careful drivers who are involved in accidents caused by reckless drivers, would be more likely to survive if wearing a belt-Most appropriate because it encourages people to wear seat belts inspite of the view presented by the passage as it can help prevent death of the innocent person.
B. All drivers should be required by law to wear a belt
C. The ratio of 'big' to 'small' road accidents is very small
D. In fatal accidents seat-belt wearers in the front seat are less likely to survive than those wearing seat belts in the back seat
E. On average, careful drivers pay lower insurance premiums than do drivers who have been involved in accidents.-Out of context,insurance premiums are not mentioned anywhere in the passage.Also,they are of monetary value,whereas here we are talking about life-value.
IMO E

it has to b/n A and E

B is irrelevant

c is irrelevant
d is irrelevant
e is more appropriate than a - whats your reasoning for this??

Hey thephoenix,
Carefully note what you have written.In the passage,no relation to insurance premiums given.
SO,E is ruled out.
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)



Just because something is hard doesn't mean you shouldn't try,it means you should just try harder.

"Keep Walking" - Johnny Walker :P
Join the discussion