Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.
(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
[spoiler=]I don't understand how A is correct . A just means two passenger vehicles , what if a household owns two heavy vehicles ? Then how is the cost of fuel going to be less ?[/spoiler]
5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP
Available with Beat the GMAT members only code
MORE DETAILS
two types of vehicle designs
This topic has expert replies
-
georgepaul0071987
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 81
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:38 am
- Thanked: 2 times
-
garima99
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:2 members
georgepaul0071987 wrote:Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger vehicles.
(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades ago.: how would that affect safety?
(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.:same as B
(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
Ya A would have been better if it said types of vehicles but others are completely wrong
[spoiler=]I don't understand how A is correct . A just means two passenger vehicles , what if a household owns two heavy vehicles ? Then how is the cost of fuel going to be less ?[/spoiler]
-
vzzai
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 85
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:13 am
- Thanked: 1 times
- GMAT Score:650
We need answer that support manufacturer's position that people are going to use 2 different cars, one for safe local travel and another for highways. Therefore, A com...about a mile close...
Thank you,
Vj
Vj
-
hazelnut01
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2016 5:34 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:4 members
General Description: This question asks you to determine which response most strengthens the argument. In approaching such questions, you should identify the conclusion of the argument, and find the response that, if true, adds to the argument's support for its conclusion.georgepaul0071987 wrote:Automobile manufacturers who began two decades ago to design passenger vehicles that were more fuel-efficient faced a dilemma in the fact that the lighter, more efficient vehicles were less safe on high-speed highways. However, the manufacturers avoided this dilemma by producing two types of passenger vehicles: a lighter vehicle for medium-speed, local transportation, and a heavier, safer vehicle for long-distance travel. Since most automobile traffic is local, a net savings in fuel use was achieved with no loss in safety.
Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?
(A) Most households whose members do any long-distance driving own at least two passenger
(B) There are more cars using high-speed highways today than there were two decades
(C) Even large automobiles are lighter today than similar-sized vehicles were two decades ago.
(D) Most high-speed highways are used by both commercial vehicles and passenger vehicles.
(E) Some automobile manufacturers designed prototypes for fuel-efficient passenger vehicles more than two decades ago.
A. Correct. The argument says that automobile manufacturers addressed the trade-off between efficiency and safety by designing two kinds of cars, a more efficient but less safe car for local travel, and a less efficient but safer car for long-distance travel. Further, the argument says that "most automobile traffic is local," and then draws its conclusion that "a net savings in fuel use was achieved [with the two car designs] with no loss in safety." The more people actually use cars in the way that leads to greatest efficiency and safety, the stronger the argument is: That is, to the extent that people actually use the more efficient cars for local travel and the safer cars for long-distance travel, the argument is stronger. Response (A) strengthens the argument by showing that it is AT LEAST possible that most people do use their cars in that way, and is the best answer.
B. Incorrect. At best, the increased number of cars using high-speed highways is essentially irrelevant to the argument.
C. Incorrect. Without further information, it is NOT clear how the truth of this statement would bear on the argument. According to the passage, lighter cars are more fuel-efficient, but less safe. From response (C) alone, we cannot tell to what extent its truth would affect the net relationship between safety and fuel efficiency.
D. Incorrect. The relationship of commercial vehicles to the situation described in the passage does not arise in the argument; thus this response is, without further information, irrelevant to the argument.
E. Incorrect. This response is at best irrelevant to the argument; exactly when automobile manufacturers began designing fuel-efficient cars is not at issue.
Difficulty Level: Relatively easy
Tips and Pitfalls: In answering a question asking for strengthening evidence, be careful NOT to read more into a response statement than is actually there. A statement that could strengthen the argument, if other (unstated) facts obtain, is not as good an answer as a statement that strengthens the argument on its own.
-
Nick0203
- Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:47 pm
- Followed by:2 members
A. Correct. The argument says that automobile manufacturers addressed the trade-off between efficiency and safety by designing two kinds of cars, a more efficient but less safe car for local travel, and a less efficient but safer car for long-distance travel. Further, the argument says that "most automobile traffic is local," and then draws its conclusion that "a net savings in fuel use was achieved [with the two car designs] with no loss in safety." The more people actually use cars in the way that leads to greatest efficiency and safety, the stronger the argument is: That is, to the extent that people actually use the more efficient cars for local travel and the safer cars for long-distance travel, the argument is stronger. Response (A) strengthens the argument by showing that it is AT LEAST possible that most people do use their cars in that way, and is the best answer.
B. At best, the increased number of cars using high-speed highways is essentially irrelevant to the argument.
C. Without further information, it is NOT clear how the truth of this statement would bear on the argument. According to the passage, lighter cars are more fuel-efficient, but less safe. From response (C) alone, we cannot tell to what extent its truth would affect the net relationship between safety and fuel efficiency.
D. The relationship of commercial vehicles to the situation described in the passage does not arise in the argument; thus this response is, without further information, irrelevant to the argument.
E. This response is at best irrelevant to the argument; exactly when automobile manufacturers began designing fuel-efficient cars is not at issue.
B. At best, the increased number of cars using high-speed highways is essentially irrelevant to the argument.
C. Without further information, it is NOT clear how the truth of this statement would bear on the argument. According to the passage, lighter cars are more fuel-efficient, but less safe. From response (C) alone, we cannot tell to what extent its truth would affect the net relationship between safety and fuel efficiency.
D. The relationship of commercial vehicles to the situation described in the passage does not arise in the argument; thus this response is, without further information, irrelevant to the argument.
E. This response is at best irrelevant to the argument; exactly when automobile manufacturers began designing fuel-efficient cars is not at issue.
