BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem
TTP OnDemand GMAT Video Course
Featured Course

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Scott Woodbury-Stewart’s private virtual classroom — 400 hours of master-class video lessons for the GMAT Focus Edition.

  • 715+ score guarantee — highest in the industry (99th percentile)
  • 52 chapters · 1,500+ lessons · 4,000+ practice questions
  • 400 hours of video · 1,500+ instructor-led HD smartboard lessons
  • 300,000+ students accepted to Harvard, Stanford, Wharton, Booth & Sloan & more
  • 24/7 live support + weekly Zoom office hours with GMAT instructors
  • TTP AI Assist — 24/7 AI-powered virtual tutor for instant help
  • 1,200+ flashcards + AI-powered study assistant & daily calendar
  • OnDemand, LiveTeach & GMAT Bootcamp formats available
  • Also: GRE, SAT Math & Executive Assessment courses
  • MBA Admissions Consulting now available
  • 🏆 2025 EdTech Breakthrough Award: Test Prep Solution Provider of the Year
  • 200,000+ students served
  • 5-day free trial — $0 to start, no auto-billing, cancel anytime
★★★★★ 5.0 (559 reviews)
130-pt guarantee
$0 to start then $127/mo
Start Free 5-Day Trial Read 559 Reviews →

Tricky CR

Expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2011 4:39 pm
Thanked: 1 times
by ranjithreddy.k9 » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:09 pm
Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executive's argument?
(A) Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
(B) Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
(D) Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
(E) Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pmFollowed by: 13 members
Thanked: 112 times

by smackmartine » Fri Jun 17, 2011 11:25 pm
IMO C
Conclusion talks about opposing recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency. The reasoning is flawed because author considers previous attempt the only way to accomplish fuel efficiency vehicles.

(A) Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury. (This does not discuss about recent guidelines and thus , does not weaken opposition to recent guidelines )
(B) Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased. (irrelevant)
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines. (There is an alternative way to accomplish higher fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.)
(D) Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.(does not weaken opposition to recent guidelines )
(E) Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since. (supports the argument)
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 12:35 am
Thanked: 1 times

by GMAT Hacker » Sat Jun 18, 2011 12:12 am
b
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:52 am
Thanked: 3 times

by M09 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:30 am
ranjithreddy.k9 wrote:Auto industry executive: Statistics show that cars that were built smaller after 1977 to make them more fuel-efficient had a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities than did their earlier larger counterparts. For this reason we oppose recent guidelines that would require us to produce cars with higher fuel efficiency.
Which of the following, if true, would constitute the strongest objection to the executive's argument?
(A) Even after 1977, large automobiles were frequently involved in accidents that caused death or serious injury.
(B) Although fatalities in accidents involving small cars have increased since 1977, the number of accidents has decreased.
(C) New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
(D) Modern technology can make small cars more fuel-efficient today than at any other time in their production history.
(E) Fuel efficiency in models of large cars rose immediately after 1977 but has been declining ever since
B looks a bit tempting, but I think it partially weakens
the latter part of option B "...the number of accidents has decreased"
I think that part doesn't clearly say the number of small car accidents has decreased.
If total car accidents = 100 ; large cars = 40 , small cars = 60
Now, total accidents = 90 ; large cars = 30 , small cars = 60
C is only choice that can be considered better because
Conclusion : oppose recent guideline because it leads to increase in fatalities
Weakening statement : New computerized fuel systems can enable large cars to meet fuel efficiency standards established by the recent guidelines.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 461
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 9:09 amFollowed by: 3 members
Location: pune
Thanked: 36 times

by amit2k9 » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:39 am
the point of focus here is the fuel efficient cars.

B and C are close calls.

B misses because it takes into consideration the accidents. POE.

C gives reason that fuel efficient cars can be made.More so the cars can be bigger too.
For Understanding Sustainability,Green Businesses and Social Entrepreneurship visit -https://aamthoughts.blocked/
(Featured Best Green Site Worldwide-https://bloggers.com/green/popular/page2)
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2193
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 6:30 pmFollowed by: 512 members
Location: Vermont and Boston, MA
Thanked: 1186 times
GMAT Score:770

by David@VeritasPrep » Sun Jun 19, 2011 6:05 pm
Here is an example of a shift in language.

It starts by saying that "smaller cars" have a higher incidence of fatalities. Then it says "higher fuel efficiency" as if "smaller" and "higher fuel efficiency" are exactly the same.

Answer choice C points out that these two terms are not necessarily the same.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:50 am
Thanked: 2 times

by abidshariff » Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:35 am
Going with C here!!...Let me put my point to show why B is wrong. It is explicitly mentioned that the executive is indifferent to small cars because of a higher incidence of accident-related fatalities(not accidents )...So I would say that he is bothered not about the accidents but about the accident-related fatalities.

I hope that gives a good enough reason to reject B.
Top
Join the discussion
Log in to postLogin with Googleuse password
QUOTE IN REPLY
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1