Ten Years Ago, The Country Of Vorland Adopted New Automobile Safety GMAT Critical Reasoning

Question: Ten years ago, the country of Vorland adopted new automobile safety regulations requiring airbags and better seat belts in all new automobiles. Since then, the annual number of drivers and passengers hospitalized overnight or longer for injuries sustained in automobile accidents has steadily declined. Clearly, the regulations have made Vorland's automobiles safer for drivers and passengers who are involved in accidents.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The citizens of Vorland generally obey all national and local speed limits.
(B) Of the patients treated at hospitals in Vorland, the percentage treated being treated for injuries sustained in automobile accidents has decreased in the past ten years.
(C) The safety improvements required by the regulations have not significantly affect the price of new automobiles.
(D) There has been no increase in speed limits on Vorland's major highways over the past ten years.
(E) Over the past ten years, there has not been a steady decline in the annual number of drivers and passengers involved in automobile accidents in Vorland.

“Ten years ago, the country of Vorland adopted new automobile safety GMAT Critical Reasoning”- is a  GMATcritical reasoning question. To answer the question, a candidate can either find a piece of evidence that would weaken the argument or have logical flaws in the argument. GMAT critical reasoning tests the logical and analytical skills of the candidates. This topic requires candidates to find the argument's strengths and weaknesses or the logical flaw in the argument. The GMAT CR section contains 10 -13 GMAT critical reasoning questions out of 36 GMAT verbal questions.

Answer: E
Explanation
:

Ten years ago, Vorland passed new laws requiring airbags and better seat belts in all new cars (regulations that make vehicles safer in the event of collisions). Since then, there has been a steady decrease in the number of drivers and passengers admitted to hospitals for an extended period of time due to car accidents (Injuries that are serious have decreased). Because of better seat belts and air bags, the argument is making the claim that serious injuries have been decreased further from accidents.

Let us analyze each option separately to determine the correct answer.

Option A: Incorrect

This states that all local, state, and federal speed limits are typically observed by Vorland residents. This doesn't matter because the argument is unaffected by something that hasn't changed.

Option B: Incorrect

According to this option, the percentage shows that fewer patients in Vorland hospitals are now being treated for injuries that they sustained in car accidents than they were ten years ago.

Even the change in the number of treated injuries from auto accidents is unknown. The total number of patients treated will determine this. Therefore, the percentage of accident treatments is unimportant.

Option C: Incorrect

This option states that the safety enhancements mandated by regulations have had little to no impact on the cost of new cars. This may be tricky. There may be fewer accidents and consequently fewer serious injuries if prices have increased significantly and the number of vehicles has decreased as a result. But the cost of new cars is not directly relevant.

Option D: Incorrect

According to this option, the top highways in Vorland haven't had their speed limits raised in the last ten years. The speed limit being raised has no relevance. It is unknown if people actually drove at higher or lower speeds.

Option E: Correct

According to this option, the annual number of motorists and passengers involved in car accidents in Vorland has not decreased steadily over the previous ten years. This is what we assume. Let's refute this assertion. It stands to reason that as the number of accidents has decreased, so have the number of serious injuries. Therefore, we cannot claim that the new regulations have made cars safer for accident victims. Therefore this assumption is needed for the argument and so this is the right answer.

From the explanations given above, it is clear that the final option is the correct answer.

Suggested GMAT Critical Reasoning Samples

Fees Structure

CategoryState
General15556

In case of any inaccuracy, Notify Us! 

Comments


No Comments To Show