Conclusion
Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. Consider
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont. Consider
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are. In fact this might weaken the conclusion
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates. Irrelevant
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports. Irrelevant

Out of A and B, only A has a direct bearing on the Cost factor. Hence I would chose A

(A)

acecoolan wrote:Conclusion
Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. Consider
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont. Consider
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are. In fact this might weaken the conclusion
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates. Irrelevant
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports. Irrelevant

Out of A and B, only A has a direct bearing on the Cost factor. Hence I would chose A

Thanks for the analysis of each options man. Unlike many forum litterbugs, you are here to contribute. I appreciate that.

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. If collision damage cost more then insurance companies are not earning profits
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont. Irrelevant
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are. Irrelevant
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates. Irrelevant
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports. Irrelevant

The reason I dismissed (A) was that I didn't like its wording, namely 'typical collision damage'. What if typical collision damage costs more in Greatport than in Fairmont, but in Greatport there are no typical collisions (i.e., all the damages are extraordinary)? Negating (A) thus doesn't weaken the argument.

Similarly, what if typical collision costs are greater in G than in F, but there is just one typical collision, and all other collisions are extraordinary with high damage costs?

Could someone please explain this objection?

For similar cars and drivers, automobile insurance for collision damage has always cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. Police studies, however, show that cars owned by Greatport residents are, on average, slightly less likely to be involved in a collision than cars in Fairmont. Clearly, therefore, insurance companies are making a greater profit on collision-damage insurance in Greatport than in Fairmont.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont.
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont.
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are.
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates.
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports.

This CR exhibits a LANGUAGE SHIFT.
The premise is about X: Auto insurance COSTS MORE in Greatport, where the residents are SLIGHTLY LESS LIKELY to be involved in a collision.
The conclusion is about Y: Insurance companies are making a greater PROFIT on collision-damage insurance in Greatport.
The assumption is that there is nothing to BREAK THE LINK between X and Y: that there are no OTHER COSTS that might affect profits in Greatport.

Answer A:
It must be true that repairing typical collision damage DOES NOT COST MORE in Greatport than in Fairmont.
Correct. If this answer choice is negated -- if repairing typical collision damage costs MORE in Greatport -- then the conclusion that insurance companies in Greatport are making a greater profit is invalid.

The correct answer is A.

nonameee wrote:The reason I dismissed (A) was that I didn't like its wording, namely 'typical collision damage'. What if typical collision damage costs more in Greatport than in Fairmont, but in Greatport there are no typical collisions (i.e., all the damages are extraordinary)? Negating (A) thus doesn't weaken the argument.

Similarly, what if typical collision costs are greater in G than in F, but there is just one typical collision, and all other collisions are extraordinary with high damage costs?

Could someone please explain this objection?

Just one + typical is an oxymoron: a contradiction in terms. If there is JUST ONE of a certain type of collision, then this sort of collision is -- by definition -- not typical but RARE.
If MOST collisions are extraordinary, then EXTRAORDINARY collisions are TYPICAL.

Thus, if TYPICAL damage in Greatport is EXTRAORDINARY, it still must be true that TYPICAL collision damage in Greatport does not cost more.

Just one + typical is an oxymoron: a contradiction in terms. If there is JUST ONE of a certain type of collision, then this sort of collision is -- by definition -- not typical but RARE.
If MOST collisions are extraordinary, then EXTRAORDINARY collisions are TYPICAL.

Thus, if TYPICAL damage in Greatport is EXTRAORDINARY, it still must be true that TYPICAL collision damage in Greatport does not cost more.

Yes, thank you very much. I got it. You are helpful as always.

This is an assumption question and best theory for assumption ques is doing the negative test.
Insurance premiums are more in City X than City Y, and accidents are less in City X than Y. Thus insurance companies are making more money.
True is we think it, what we don't need too strengthen it, need to find an assumption why author thinks insurance companies are making more money.

1 reason can be if there no other cost which put city X on backfoot, and its in parallel to City Y, so ofcourse claijm stands. Now if we put NO in front of it, and say there is Other cost which CITY X has after accident, so insurance companies are not making money, They might be loosing it less than City Y.

Option A : Answer

A. Repairing typical collision damage does not cost more in Greatport than in Fairmont. : Bingo : This is what we are looking for
B. There are no more motorists in Greatport than in Fairmont. we are not considering particularly motorist or any other.
C. Greatport residents who have been in a collision are more likely to report it to their insurance company than Fairmont residents are. : Out of scope
D. Fairmont and Greatport are the cities with the highest collision-damage insurance rates. Irrelevant
E. The insurance companies were already aware of the difference in the likelihood of collisions before the publication of the police reports. Irrelevant