Car Safety Requirement

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

Car Safety Requirement

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

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

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/

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

User avatar
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

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Nov 24, 2009 7:56 am
Location: Philadelphia
Thanked: 13 times
Followed by:4 members
GMAT Score:660

by chendawg » Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:56 pm
E = The Classic Trap Answer!

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

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

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

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 ?

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
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.

User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 7:18 pm
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:4 members

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?

User avatar
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.:idea: :idea: :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.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:22 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

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

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

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.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 574
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:47 pm
Location: USA
Thanked: 29 times
Followed by:5 members

by Target2009 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:47 pm
+1 to C
Regards
Abhishek
------------------------------
MasterGmat Student

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:06 am
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

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

User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 12:40 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

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