Car Safety Requirement

Expert replies

komal: Legendary Member; Posts: 777; Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 amFollowed by: 47 members; Location: Mumbai, India; Thanked: 117 times

by komal » Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:20 am

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/

Like this post

Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning | Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:20 am

outreach: Legendary Member; Posts: 748; Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 amFollowed by: 3 members; Thanked: 46 times

by outreach » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:32 am

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.blocked/

Like this post

Phirozz: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 232; Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 10:47 pm; Thanked: 10 times

by Phirozz » Tue Mar 09, 2010 6:20 pm

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

Like this post

bacchewar_prashant: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 39; Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2010 11:34 pm; Thanked: 1 times

by bacchewar_prashant » Fri Nov 12, 2010 3:24 am

(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

Like this post

chendawg: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 163; Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 amFollowed by: 4 members; Location: Philadelphia; Thanked: 13 times; GMAT Score:660

by chendawg » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:56 pm

E = The Classic Trap Answer!

Like this post

desmondbaldwin: Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts; Posts: 1; Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:31 am

by desmondbaldwin » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:35 am

Like this post

anirudhbhalotia: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 123; Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:18 pmFollowed by: 4 members; Location: Mumbai, India; Thanked: 5 times

by anirudhbhalotia » Fri Dec 10, 2010 2:13 am

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 ?

Like this post

Brian@VeritasPrep: GMAT Instructor; Posts: 1031; Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pmFollowed by: 255 members; Location: Malibu, CA; Thanked: 716 times; GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:06 pm

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
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

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

Like this post

anirudhbhalotia: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 123; Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:18 pmFollowed by: 4 members; Location: Mumbai, India; Thanked: 5 times

by anirudhbhalotia » Fri Dec 10, 2010 7:30 pm

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?

Like this post

maddy2u: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 32; Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:45 am; Thanked: 2 times; GMAT Score:710

by maddy2u » Mon Dec 20, 2010 8:54 am

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. :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.

Like this post

niazsna786: Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts; Posts: 19; Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:22 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 1 times

by niazsna786 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:23 am

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

Like this post

artistocrat: Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts; Posts: 152; Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 4:36 pmFollowed by: 2 members; Thanked: 8 times

by artistocrat » Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:32 pm

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.

Like this post

Target2009: Legendary Member; Posts: 574; Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pmFollowed by: 5 members; Location: USA; Thanked: 29 times

by Target2009 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:47 pm

+1 to C

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

Like this post

saurabh2525_gupta: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 72; Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:06 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 2 times

by saurabh2525_gupta » Mon Aug 22, 2011 11:42 am

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

Like this post

olegpoi: Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts; Posts: 31; Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:40 amFollowed by: 1 member; Thanked: 1 times

by olegpoi » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:40 pm

Definitely C

Like this post

Post new topic Post Reply

GMAT Course Reviews

559 reviews

1168 reviews

431 reviews

359 reviews

147 reviews

5/5

5 Star (560 Reviews)

"Target Test Prep is the closest to the official version of the GMAT exam, about 99% accuracy in terms of the quality and quantity of information. The course has excellently created singular sets of focused lessons and tests for every possible topic that one could come across in the official GMAT exam."

"The TTP course maximizes the efficiency of the time you spend studying. It will take time and effort but I could almost guarantee that if you complete the course exactly as it is laid out you will get an amazing score. They also have a very responsive team willing to help with any questions you might have."

"TTP has two things that I think no other test prep company offers: A teaching approach that reinforces understanding and an attitude that will give you the mental preparedness needed to succeed on the test. TTP gives you a deep understanding of the concept you need to know while teaching you how to think."

Write a Review