In the nation of Partoria, large trucks currently account for 6 percent of miles driven on Partoria's roads but are...

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Weaken

MEDIUM

...

Notes

Post a Query

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?

Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will keep some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.

Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.

In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.

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.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
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.	What it says: Large trucks drive only 6% of miles but cause 12% of highway deaths - they're twice as dangerous as their road usage suggests What it does: Sets up the basic problem by showing trucks are disproportionately dangerous What it is: Statistical evidence establishing the safety concern Visualization: Road Usage vs Fatalities: Large trucks = 6% of miles, 12% of deaths (double the danger rate)
The very largest trucks — those with three trailers — had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks.	What it says: Triple-trailer trucks have much lower accident rates than single and double-trailer trucks What it does: Introduces surprising evidence that contradicts what we might expect from the first statement What it is: Statistical comparison between truck types Visualization: Accident Rates: Single/Double-trailer trucks = 30 accidents per 100,000 miles; Triple-trailer trucks = less than 10 accidents per 100,000 miles
Clearly, therefore, one way for Partoria to reduce highway deaths would be to require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks.	What it says: Since triple-trailer trucks are safer, Partoria should make shippers use more of them to reduce deaths What it does: Draws the main conclusion by connecting the lower accident rate to a policy recommendation What it is: Author's conclusion and policy recommendation

Argument Flow:

The argument starts by establishing that trucks are a safety problem (causing disproportionate fatalities), then presents evidence that one specific type of truck (triple-trailer) is actually much safer than others, and concludes we should use more of the safer trucks to solve the overall problem.

Main Conclusion:

Partoria should require shippers to increase their use of triple-trailer trucks to reduce highway deaths.

Logical Structure:

The argument uses a comparison of accident rates between different truck types as evidence to support a policy recommendation. The logic assumes that because triple-trailer trucks have lower accident rates, increasing their use will reduce overall highway deaths.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce our belief in the conclusion that requiring more triple-trailer trucks would reduce highway deaths in Partoria.

Precision of Claims

The argument makes quantitative claims about accident rates (triple-trailers have less than 1/3 the accident rate) and activity claims (requiring increased use will reduce deaths). The key precision issue is that we're talking specifically about reducing highway deaths through this policy change.

Strategy

To weaken this argument, we need to find reasons why having more triple-trailer trucks might NOT lead to fewer highway deaths, even though they individually have lower accident rates. We should look for factors that could offset the safety benefit, create new problems, or show why the comparison isn't reliable for predicting the policy outcome.

Answer Choices Explained

Partorian trucking companies have so far used triple-trailer trucks on lightly traveled sections of major highways only.

This seriously weakens the argument by revealing a critical flaw in the reasoning. If triple-trailer trucks have only been used on lightly traveled roads, then their lower accident rate might be due to operating in safer conditions rather than being inherently safer vehicles. When we increase their use as the argument suggests, they would likely need to operate on heavily traveled roads where accident rates are naturally higher. This means the current safety comparison is misleading and the policy might not reduce deaths as expected.

No matter what changes Partoria makes in the regulation of trucking, it will keep some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks.

This doesn't weaken the argument because it's about keeping some smaller roads off-limits to all large trucks, which doesn't affect the comparison between different types of large trucks or challenge the reasoning that triple-trailers are safer. The argument is specifically about highway deaths and using more triple-trailer trucks on highways where large trucks are already allowed.

Very few fatal collisions involving trucks in Partoria are collisions between two trucks.

This is irrelevant to the argument. Whether fatal truck collisions are between two trucks or between trucks and other vehicles doesn't affect the reasoning that triple-trailer trucks have lower accident rates and should be used more to reduce deaths. The argument is about overall highway fatalities involving trucks, not specifically truck-on-truck collisions.

In Partoria, the safety record of the trucking industry as a whole has improved slightly over the past ten years.

This information about overall industry improvement doesn't weaken the specific argument about triple-trailer trucks. Even if the industry has improved slightly, the argument could still be valid that switching to more triple-trailer trucks would provide additional improvement. This doesn't challenge the comparison between truck types or the policy recommendation.

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.

This talks about payload capacity, not safety. Even if triple-trailer trucks carry less than three times the cargo of single-trailer trucks, this doesn't affect the argument's reasoning about accident rates and reducing deaths. The argument is based on safety statistics, not cargo efficiency, so information about payload doesn't weaken the safety-based conclusion.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...