gmat prep 1

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 228
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2008 8:08 am
Thanked: 4 times

gmat prep 1

by jainrahul1985 » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:10 pm
In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent. In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.

Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?

(A) The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.
(B) After unification, many people who had been living in East Germany relocated to West Germany.
(C) After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.
(D) Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.
(E) Over the same two-year period in East Germany, other road users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, experienced only small increases in traffic fatalities

OA [spoiler]D
But why not A[/spoiler]
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 509
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:08 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 199 times
Followed by:85 members
GMAT Score:750

by tpr-becky » Sun Jun 27, 2010 9:59 pm
You want to explain the fact that the number of cars and miles increased by 40% but the deaths in traffic accidents increased by 300%. In these resolve questions you have to say why the 300% increase if cars only went up 40% - the correct answer choice will directly answer this question.

A) - this says the number of passengers actually went down after the unification - which would mean fewer fatalities, not more.

B) Nothing about cars

C) we don't know what used vehicles means or what effect they woudl have on the numbers

D) inexperienced drivers accounted for the 40% increase - this could mean more accidents

E) we aren't worried about other types of traffic accidents.

Therefore D is the best answer.
Becky
Master GMAT Instructor
The Princeton Review
Irvine, CA

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:36 am
intially i didnt understand the meaning of statement D. then i have choosen A. but as stated in D as the drivers before 1989 have not sufficeint driving experince have a significant increase in their driving distances hence they have made huge accidents in 2 years after unification.

this is the only reason for 300 % increase in accidents