NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 27 Apr 2024, 14:50 It is currently 27 Apr 2024, 14:50
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
   1   2 
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
B
dushyantkanal
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 May 2020
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 20 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   29 Sep 2022, 02:48
Vicky wrote:
In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile accidents are typically more severe than in Europe, where laws require a different kind of safety belt. It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better.

Each of the following, if true, weakens the argument above EXCEPT:


(A) Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts than are people in the United States.

(B) Unlike United States drivers, European drivers receive training in how best to react in the event of an accident to minimize injuries to themselves and to their passengers.

(C) Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction than do cars built for the United States market.

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe.

(E) States that have recently begun requiring the European safety belt have experienced no reduction in the average severity of injuries suffered by passengers in automobile accidents.

CR10661.01



Best way to answer CR questions is to identify the conclusion and then go from there

Conclusion here is : United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better

What the author is saying is that better safety belt design will protect automobile passengers in US better.

Now, the question asks us to find 4 weaken statements to this conclusion and eliminate them. The choice remaining choice will be the correct one.

A - Alternate reason to why the accidents are less severe in Europe, which is that europeans are more likely to wear seatbelts. - Eliminate

B- European drivers receive some specialized training that reduces the severity of accidents. Alternate reason - Eliminate

C - Cars in Europe are more sturdy. Alternate reasons - Eliminate

D - Americans have a greater chance of getting in an accident. - Can't understand how this weakens the conclusion. - Keep for now

E - Some states in the US have tried the European style of the safety belt but have seen no reduction in the average - Weakens the argument by telling us that the plan implemented for a small sample has not had the expected impact - Eliminate

Left with option, D, though I cannot understand it completely, must be the correct answer.
User avatar
B
SnorLax_7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 1840
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   23 Mar 2024, 09:38
Hi GMATIntensive KarishmaB MartyMurray DmitryFarber
Quote:
It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better

I know that This arguement has gone further and made the Necessary conditional type of conclusion. For me, It mixes cause/effect and conditional at the same time. Can I made the remark in my tracker that when arguement gist is related to correlation causation then no matter how conclusion is made/drafted we just need to focus on that Correlation - causation thing and should check the impact of options from arguement reasoning's view and not just conclusion's ? or is there something else that I should know/follow?

Kindly can you help ?

Thanks !­
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 827
Own Kudos [?]: 1424 [2]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   24 Mar 2024, 00:25
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
SnorLax_7 wrote:
Quote:
It is clear from this that the United States needs to adopt more stringent standards for safety belt design to protect automobile passengers better

I know that This arguement has gone further and made the Necessary conditional type of conclusion. For me, It mixes cause/effect and conditional at the same time. Can I made the remark in my tracker that when arguement gist is related to correlation causation then no matter how conclusion is made/drafted we just need to focus on that Correlation - causation thing and should check the impact of options from arguement reasoning's view and not just conclusion's ? or is there something else that I should know/follow?

Kindly can you help ?

Thanks !­

­It's often the case that, when a question involves an argument like this one, the correct answer will be more closely related to the correlation than to the final conclusoin. So, your strategy makes sense for the most part.

At the same time, I don't think it makes sense to go so far as to say that we should always just focus on the correlation/causation aspect of the argument in considering the answer choices. After all, a question could work in a different way, one such that the correct answer is somehow more closely related to the stated conclusion than to the correlation/causation aspect. So, in using your suggested approach, you'd be at risk of ignoring the correct answer.

In general, it's best not to assume anything about how the correct answer to a Critical Reasoning question will work. So, a safer approach in answering a question in which a correlation supports the conclusion would be to be cognizant of the fact that the correct answer may be closely related to the correlation and at the same time be ready for the correct answer to work in another way.­
User avatar
B
SnorLax_7
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Nov 2022
Posts: 100
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 1840
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   24 Mar 2024, 02:38
Hi MartyMurray, Thanks for the detailed explanation !

I tried to apply the approach you mentioned in this question and ended up with 2 answers here, Option D and Option E. Option D for obvious reason is not a weakener, but Option E is also not a weakener for me if I see this only from conclusion view.

In Necessary conditions, A (European Safety belt) doesn't imply B (Protection or safety), and same is mentioned in Option E, then how can option E be a weakener ?

at the same time, I know E is a valid weakener if I use that correlation - causation approach, thats why I thought to made the remark for this question.

Am I going wrong ? Kindly can you help ?

Thanks
User avatar
B
acethegmat6969
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Jan 2024
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 8 [0]
Given Kudos: 18
Location: Canada
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
Schools: IESE INSEAD IE HEC
Send PM
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   27 Mar 2024, 01:27
Gustavoncf wrote:
The fact that Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction couldn't imply that their safety belts are better?

When i saw C, i thought that it could strenght the argument, bringing evidence that the safety belts could be one of the facts of the sturdiness

­That was my exact thought as well.
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 827
Own Kudos [?]: 1424 [0]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   28 Mar 2024, 10:56
Expert Reply
 
acethegmat6969 wrote:
Gustavoncf wrote:
The fact that Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction couldn't imply that their safety belts are better?

When i saw C, i thought that it could strenght the argument, bringing evidence that the safety belts could be one of the facts of the sturdiness

­That was my exact thought as well.

­The thing is that "more sturdy construction" would apply to the entire car, not just to the seatbelt. Thus, this choice could still serve to call into question whether seatbelts are the key factor making the difference.

Also, possibly more importantly, "more sturdy construction" and "seat belt design" are two different things. The conclusion is basically about "kind of safety belt," rather than about sturdiness, which may not be affected by "more stringent standards for safety belt design" that are focused on the "kind" of belt.

So, even if this choice means that European belts are sturdier, it wouldn't really support the case for the conclusion and could still be seen as weakening the case for more stringent standards focused on the "kind" of belt.
User avatar
P
MartyMurray
Tutor
Joined: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 827
Own Kudos [?]: 1424 [0]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   28 Mar 2024, 11:46
Expert Reply
SnorLax_7 wrote:
Hi MartyMurray, Thanks for the detailed explanation !

I tried to apply the approach you mentioned in this question and ended up with 2 answers here, Option D and Option E. Option D for obvious reason is not a weakener, but Option E is also not a weakener for me if I see this only from conclusion view.

In Necessary conditions, A (European Safety belt) doesn't imply B (Protection or safety), and same is mentioned in Option E, then how can option E be a weakener ?

at the same time, I know E is a valid weakener if I use that correlation - causation approach, thats why I thought to made the remark for this question.

Am I going wrong ? Kindly can you help ?

Thanks

­I think you're going wrong thinking that you need to view the choice in one way or another. There are different ways choices can work, and you don't have to choose among them. The move is just to consider how the choice may work and let what you see about the choice dictate how the choice works rather than looking for any particular characteristic to see whether it's present.
User avatar
B
stackskillz
Manager
Manager
Joined: 28 Feb 2022
Posts: 63
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [0]
Given Kudos: 163
Send PM
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink] New post   30 Mar 2024, 04:29
Conclusion: Poor safety belt design leads to more server automobile accidents in US than in Europe.
Type: Weaken (Except)

(A) Europeans are more likely to wear safety belts than are people in the United States - This option provides an alternate cause, hence it's a weakener. Drop

(B) Unlike United States drivers, European drivers receive training in how best to react in the event of an accident to minimize injuries to themselves and to their passengers. This options also provides an alternate reason for the higher serverity of automobile accidents in the US. Drop

(C) Cars built for the European market tend to have more sturdy construction than do cars built for the United States market. The logical implication of the option being that sturdy constructions lead to better safety outcomes, i.e., less severe accidents. This does weaken the passage. Drop

(D) Automobile passengers in the United States have a greater statistical chance of being involved in an accident than do passengers in Europe. Easy pick. Make sure not to confuse the cause with fact presented. If you thought, wait a minute higher incidence of accident is the reason for higher severity, then that would be flawed thinking. It can always be the case that higher incidence of accidents could be of low impact or severity and hence is not a probable alternate cause. This information just tells us that more vehicles are colliding in the US than in Europe. That's all - No effect. Keep

(E) States that have recently begun requiring the European safety belt have experienced no reduction in the average severity of injuries suffered by passengers in automobile accidents. This shows that belts are not the reason for the accident severity. Therefore, weakens the conclusion. Drop
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: In the United States, injuries to passengers involved in automobile ac [#permalink]
30 Mar 2024, 04:29
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions