New Cars

[italian7745]

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

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

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.

(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago.

[ankit1383]

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

Question talks about average individual income.So this hardly matters

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.Out of Scope

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.This strengthen the argument
(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.Out of scope

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago. This is correct

[niraj_a]

i got E too by POE, i don't agree with its logic though.

E is saying that more individuals bought new cars 25 years ago than today. this doesn't directly indicate how much people spent relative to their income 25 years ago vs. today.

[italian7745]

OA is E..Can anyone explain y??

[perfectstranger]

Over the last 25 years, the average price paid for a new car has steadily increased in relation to average individual income. This increase indicates that individuals who buy new cars today spend, on average, a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

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

(A) There has been a significant increase over the last 25 years in the proportion of individuals in households with more than one wage earner.

(B) The number of used cars sold annually is the same as it was 25 years ago.

(C) Allowing for inflation, average individual income has significantly declined over the last 25 years.

(D) During the last 25 years, annual new-car sales and population have both increased, but new-car sales have increased by a greater percentage.

(E) Sales to individuals make up a smaller proportion of all new-car sales they did 25 years ago.

a larger amount relative to their incomes buying a car than their counterparts did 25 years ago.

what's the relation between avarage income and proportion of income spent for a car . I really confused

[arorag]

Any expert for E's explanation..... I am confused..

[enniguy]

If there is another reason for the prices to go up, such as organizations, corporate companies buying expensive cars, then avg price paid for new cars go up while the individuals are still buying lower end model cars (Paying low amounts) then the individuals are not spending a greater portion of their income on funding their cars. Note that, the avg will go up if there are a significant high end cars bought over as explained in option E.

[delhiboy1979]

I am lost wit this . THe argument says that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their income. We are looking for an option that weakens this.

I have no idea how E is weakening this arguement namely that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their incomes on buying cars.

[enniguy]

I am lost wit this . THe argument says that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their income. We are looking for an option that weakens this.

I have no idea how E is weakening this arguement namely that individuals are spending a greater proportion of their incomes on buying cars.

Differentiate between Individuals and corporates. Consider Corporates buy expensive cars and individuals buy cheap cars then if you calculate the average, "the average price paid for a new car" will go up.

e.g: 3 individuals buy Rs.300 cars. Total=900.
Average price paid per new car is now Rs.300.

Then,
1 Corporate buys a car worth Rs.3100.

Now the total amt spent on new cars = Rs.4000.
Average price paid per new car is now Rs.1000. (4000/4).

You can read my previous explanation now.

Hope it helps.

[turbo jet]

Conclusion indicates that there is a direct relationship between car prices and individual incomes.

Option E states that there is no relation between individuals and car prices as individuals do not comprise majority car buyers
Thus Option E understates the conclusion and thereby weakens the argument.

Tip: In weakening question, identify the conclusion in the argument and find the option that understates the conclusion.

Cheers
Tj

[Eric77Gorm]

Well I feel E is the answer.