This is a classic causal argument. As a rule of thumb (is mostly true but not always) , when you see a causal argument and are asked to weaken or find a flaw in it, almost immediately you should set about looking for an answer choice that points to a reason other than the one stated in the argument.

Here, the argument states that it is in fact the color of the car that is responsible for the accidents and loss of life and hence red cards should be banned. We need to find an answer choice that shows us that in fact, there is another reason that so many accidents are being caused by red cars.

Now look at C. C states that it may be possible that reckless drivers just prefer red cars. If that is the case, then clearly it is not the color of the car that is dangerous, just that it attracts reckless drivers.

E is incorrect because the argument never once stated that EVERY accident results in a loss of life. It merely states that lives could be saved by eliminating red cars.


Try this question now using the same logic. It is from GMAT prep and came to my mind right away when doing this:

In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria's roads but are involved in 12 percent of all highway fatalities. The very largest trucks -those with three trailers- had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks. Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will have to keep smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.
(B) So far only the best, most experienced drivers for Partorian trucking companies have been driving triple-trailer trucks.
(C) Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.
(D) In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.
(E) In Partoria, the maximum legal payload of a triple-trailer truck is less than three times the maximum legal payload of the largest of the single-trailer trucks.

if i go by my logic I would answer C which is obviously wrong drawing an analogy between the 2 questions.

Correct answer is B.

If the new triple trucks are driven by new drivers the conclusion will become invalid.

(I have planned my G-prep 1 on 31st dec, so I better not see any g-prep questions now ))))

bblast wrote:10. 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

As per powerscore bible, outside info should be avoided in flaw questions,
i narrowed down to c and e and went with e as it seems to comply with the powerscore tip but I went wrong
suggestions please.

The key to this question, as to many CR questions, is to come up with your own prediction of what the correct answer should do BEFORE you go the answer choice., and HOLD to it, not letting trap answer choices sway you.

The question asks you to find the flaw in the argument. Before you go to the answer choices, ask yourself: what is the flaw? Why is this wrong?
It seems right - If the insurance companies are right and red cars are the problem, then maybe red cars SHOULD be banned. So what could make this wrong? perhaps the problem is not with the red cars themselves, but with something else?

*BAM*. Now your job is to find an answer choice that says that the problem is not with the red cars per se, but with something else. C does that - it gives a possible alternative explanation. NEver mind that the argument didn't discuss drivers, Never mind that Powerscore said not to use otside information - C does what the right answer should do. Hold on to that thougt, and don't let trap answer choices such as E steal your mind - trust your analysis of the argument.