A recent report shows that the number of collisions between

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

A recent report shows that the number of collisions between vehicles at junctions with electronic advertising signs, and the number of such collisions at junctions that do not have such signs, are the same. The installation of electronic advertising signs at junctions, therefore, does not affect road safety.

Which of the following would it be most useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument?

a, Whether the current figures for road accidents can be reduced by improving certain conditions such as lighting
b. Whether the companies that install the electronic signs have official government approval to do so
c. Whether more than 50% of the collisions that take place at junctions are fatal
d. Whether the companies being advertised by the electronic signs report increases in the number of customers that approach them
e. Whether the figures for accidents involving pedestrians are also the same for both types of junction

OA E

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

by deloitte247 » Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:55 pm

Timer

00:00

Your Answer

A

B

C

D

E

Global Stats

OPTION A - INCORRECT
It is most inappropriate to say that road accident can be reduced by improving certain conditions such as lighting. This is because from the report, it can easily be noted that the collision from both junctions are the same. Hence, improving the condition by putting lighting won't still change anything. Rather, the same number of collisions will still be recorded with junctions with no such conditions

OPTION B - INCORRECT
Consequently, whether the company that installed the electronics signs have governmental approval or not, it still doesn't change anything. It's not useful, inconsequential and thus, wrong to believe. Whether approval or no approval, it doesn't change the fact that the collision equals or balances alike, whether electronic signs or none.

OPTION C - INCORRECT
As it stands, it is wrong to look it as the 50% of the collision. Certainly, it should be fatal. If not for anything by, the reason of the incident take place in a junction

OPTION D - INCORRECT
Just as in option B, this is inconsequential and wrong. However with the knowledge of exact same collision happening both on the non light and the light junction. The customers won't be needing to change their approach in anyway because it doesn't change anything.

OPTION E - CORRECT
This is so correct; just as in electric and non-electric junction recording same exact figure on collision. It is most likely to be same on the pedestrian because it is same type of users. And this makes it correct and useful to establish in order to evaluate the argument as stated in the report