In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent. In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent.
Which of the following, if true, most helps to explain the disproportionate increase in traffic fatalities?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In the two years following the unification of Germany in 1989, the number of cars owned by residents of East Germany and the total distance traveled by cars in East Germany both increased by about 40 percent. |
|
| In those two years, however, the number of East German residents killed each year as car occupants in traffic accidents increased by about 300 percent. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by giving us moderate increases in car ownership and driving (both 40%), then hits us with a shocking contrast - traffic deaths increased by 300% in the same period. This creates a puzzle that needs explaining.
Main Conclusion:
There's no explicit conclusion here - this is actually a setup for a question. The passage presents a puzzle about why traffic fatalities increased so much more dramatically than car ownership and usage.
Logical Structure:
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's presenting contradictory data that creates a problem to solve. The structure is: Moderate increase + Dramatic increase = Something else must be going on here.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Paradox - We need to explain why traffic deaths increased 300% when car ownership and distance traveled only increased 40%. This is a classic 'resolve the discrepancy' question where we need to find what caused the disproportionate increase in fatalities.
Precision of Claims
The claims are quantitative and precise: 40% increase in cars and distance vs 300% increase in deaths over the same two-year period in East Germany after 1989 unification. We cannot question these numbers - we must explain why deaths increased \(7.5 \times\) faster than expected.
Strategy
For paradox questions, we need to find factors that explain why the death rate increased so dramatically compared to the moderate increase in driving activity. We should look for reasons why driving became much more dangerous per mile driven or per car owned. The explanation should account for the specific context of East German unification in 1989.
'The average number of passengers per car was higher in the years before unification than it was in the two years after.' This choice suggests fewer passengers per car after unification. While this might slightly affect total casualties per accident, it doesn't explain why the accident rate itself increased so dramatically. The \(\mathrm{300\%}\) increase in deaths is far too large to be explained by changes in passenger density alone. This doesn't resolve the paradox.
'After unification, many people who had been living in East Germany relocated to West Germany.' If anything, this would reduce the number of people in East Germany who could be involved in traffic accidents there. This choice would make the paradox worse, not better, since we'd have fewer people but dramatically more deaths per capita.
'After unification, a smaller proportion of the cars being purchased by East German residents were used vehicles.' This means more people were buying new cars rather than used ones. New cars are generally safer and more reliable than used cars, so this would actually suggest fewer accidents should occur, not more. This choice contradicts what we're trying to explain.
'Drivers who had driven little or not at all before 1989 accounted for much of the increase in the total distance traveled by cars.' This perfectly explains our paradox. If most of the \(\mathrm{40\%}\) increase in driving was done by inexperienced drivers who had rarely driven before, this would dramatically increase the danger level per mile driven. Inexperienced drivers have poor judgment, slower reaction times, and lack familiarity with traffic safety, making fatal accidents much more likely. This accounts for why a modest \(\mathrm{40\%}\) increase in driving led to a massive \(\mathrm{300\%}\) increase in deaths.
'Over the same two-year period in East Germany, other road users, such as motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, experienced only small increases in traffic fatalities.' While this confirms that the problem is specifically with car occupants rather than all road users, it doesn't explain WHY car occupant deaths increased so dramatically. This choice provides additional context but doesn't resolve the paradox we're asked to explain.