CR: It would cost Rosetown...

[syamalanka]

It would cost Rosetown one million dollars to repair all of its roads. In the year after completion of those repairs, however, Rosetown would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Rosetown pays that amount annually in compensation for damage done to cars each year by its unrepaired roads.
Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?

(A) Communities bordering on Rosetown also pay compensation for damage done to cars by their unrepaired roads.

(B) After any Rosetown road has been repaired, several years will elapse before that road begins to damage cars.

(C) Rosetown would need to raise additional taxes if it were to spend one million dollars in one year on road repairs.

(D) The degree of damage caused to Rosetown’s roads by harsh weather can vary widely from year to year.

(E) Trucks cause much of the wear on Rosetown’s roads, but owners of cars file almost all of the claims for compensation for damage caused by unrepaired roads.

I can't believe the answer is B. It should most certainly be E. Can someone please explain.

[sanyalpritish]

E: Can't the Trucks damage the roads nxt day and the car start claimng insurance, other options than B other options are wrng

[syamalanka]

The question is: "Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?". What is the argument? The argument is:

"Rosetown would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Rosetown pays that amount annually in compensation for damage done to cars each year by its unrepaired roads.".

So, we know Rosetown would avoid incurring 3 mil dollars, because as per option E, owners of cars 'alone' file for all the compensation. If E were not true and trucks were to also file for compensation, the compensation amount could have been much more than 3 mil dollars.

Basically:
Rosetown thinks it would save 3 mill dollars worth of damage compensation. Potentially:

Total Damage compensation by Rosetown (that is estimated as 3 mill) = Compensation paid to cars + Compensation paid to trucks

We know from the stimulus that "Compensation paid to cars" = 3 mill.

Substituting,
Total Damage compensation by Rosetown (that is estimated as 3 mill) = Compensation paid to cars (3 mill) + Compensation paid to trucks

The above equation would hold good, only if:

Compensation paid to trucks = 0 => This is exactly what option E suggests.

[Ben Ku]

Please cite the source (author) of this problem. We cannot reply unless a source is cited (and, if no source is cited, we will have to delete the post!). Thanks.

[syamalanka]

Hi Ben,

I encountered this question as part of the 1000 CR series.

Regards.

[syamalanka]

Hi Ben,

Could you please reply to my post.

Thanks.

[RonPurewal]

The question is: "Which of the following, if true, gives the strongest support to the argument above?". What is the argument? The argument is:

"Rosetown would thereby avoid incurring three million dollars worth of damages, since currently Rosetown pays that amount annually in compensation for damage done to cars each year by its unrepaired roads.".

So, we know Rosetown would avoid incurring 3 mil dollars, because as per option E, owners of cars 'alone' file for all the compensation. If E were not true and trucks were to also file for compensation, the compensation amount could have been much more than 3 mil dollars.

Basically:
Rosetown thinks it would save 3 mill dollars worth of damage compensation. Potentially:

Total Damage compensation by Rosetown (that is estimated as 3 mill) = Compensation paid to cars + Compensation paid to trucks

We know from the stimulus that "Compensation paid to cars" = 3 mill.

Substituting,
Total Damage compensation by Rosetown (that is estimated as 3 mill) = Compensation paid to cars (3 mill) + Compensation paid to trucks

The above equation would hold good, only if:

Compensation paid to trucks = 0 => This is exactly what option E suggests.

ah, ok, i see what you're doing, but it's incorrect.

if you say "avoid incurring/paying/accumulating X amount", that wording does not imply that X amount is the ENTIRETY of the quantity. it just means that you can avoid X amount, even if X amount is part of a larger amount.

for instance:
you can avoid losing $200 worth of bets by folding your hand now.
this sentence is perfectly acceptable in a situation in which, say, the listener is already going to lose $800 by folding, but would lose an additional $200 by not folding.

--

choice (b) is the correct answer, since it guarantees that the aforementioned damages will not occur within the first year (which is the only timeframe considered in the passage).