punitkaur wrote:Premiums for automobile accident insurance are often
higher for red cars than for cars of other colors. To
justify these higher charges, insurance companies claim
that, overall, a greater percentage of red cars are
involved in accidents than are cars of any other color. If
this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved
by banning red cars from the roads altogether.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because
the argument

(A) accepts without question that insurance
companies have the right to charge higher
premiums for higher-risk clients
(B) fails to consider whether red cars cost the same to
repair as cars of other colors
(C) ignores the possibility that drivers who drive
recklessly have a preference for red cars
(D) does not specify precisely what percentage of red
cars are involved in accidents
(E) makes an unsupported assumption that every
automobile accident results in some loss of life

I was confused between C & E. I chose C. However, I am wondering what people think about E and why it could be wrong?

In order to argue that lives would be saved, the author does not have to assume that EVERY automobile accident results in some loss of life.

Thanks testluv, I was confirming my thoughts on this choice.

Also your suggestion of first finding the assumptions before approaching the choices is kind of working. Not always though may be because I am not yet good at it.

But Instead of approaching the choices cluelessly, going ahead even with a vague notion of some assumption is better than aimlessly trying to pick the correct answer.

Also your suggestion of first finding the assumptions before approaching the choices is kind of working. Not always though may be because I am not yet good at it.

...the keyword in the above quote is "yet"!

Keep at it. Make sure you review your reasoning. If you picked choice A but the answer key says choice C is the right answer, DON'T head straight to the solution. Try to figure out why choice A is wrong ON YOUR OWN before going to the solution. Try your hardest to figure out why choice A is wrong even if it is taking five, ten minutes. This is time very well spent (better than just doing questions over and over again without contemplating your reasoning process). What you're looking for is the lightbulb: "oh!! That's why choice A is wrong!" Only then, should you head to the solution. In other words, try to use solutions to confirm your understanding not to inform it.

Also, you should review your right answers. The first thing you should ask of a CR (or any other GMAT) question is: "was it a close call, did I almost pick that tempting wrong answer? Or, did I really and truly know at the time that the correct answer was correct?" If it was a close call--if you almost picked a tempting wrong answer--then you should review the question as though you had in fact selected the incorrect answer. Try to figure out why the right answer is right and why the wrong answer is wrong. But, in reviewing "close call" questions, you should also ask whether your reason for picking the right answer over the wrong one was matching any reasoning discussed in the OE.

On the other hand, if you think you had a good and solid reason for picking the right answer, recall that reason and check it directly against the OE.

Must be C, because C shows that the author does not consider that the cause of these accidents by red cars is not the color of the cars, but the drivers who prefer to drive red cars.

Yes, the answer to this question is definitely C, and fantastic reasoning, Hesham.

My post was to punitkaur was general in nature, discussing the optimal review process for reviewing in CR. I just happened to use choices A and C as examples. You could have subbed in any of the five answer choices.