Q10 - Premiums for automobile accident insurance

[missbernadette]

This question is working my nerves. I stuck between C and E. I want with E, because car accidents don't equal loss of life. I don't see how C holds much weigh because of reckless driver's preference for red cars. They can still driver recklessly even if red cars are banned....Even if they have a preference for red cars, they can still drive other cars.

[noah]

You've actually figured out why (C) is the answer!

The core of this conclusion is:

red cars are in greater % of accidents --> lives saved by banning red cars

Read like a debater. Why might it be that lives would NOT be saved by banning the red cars? As you stated, perhaps those drivers will simply go and drive recklessly in their blue cars. That's the flaw in this argument, as (C) notes.

(A) is out of scope. Premiums is not part of the core.

(B) is out of scope. Cost?

(D) is too picky! Why does the argument need a specific percentage? It's enough to say that it's greater.

(E) is untrue. The argument does not assume that every car accident results in someone dieing. Perhaps there's an assumption that at least some accidents result in death, but not ALL.

You need to stand your ground with flaw answer choices and ask "Did the argument really do that?"

Does that clear it up?

[patrice.antoine]

So its not the red cars causing accidents but that those drivers in car accidents happen to drive/prefer red cars? Answer choice (C) provides an alternative cause that the author fails to consider, right?

Thanks!

[noah]

So its not the red cars causing accidents but that those drivers in car accidents happen to drive/prefer red cars? Answer choice (C) provides an alternative cause that the author fails to consider, right?

Thanks!

yup!

[hnadgauda]

The reason why I eliminated C was because I reasoned that if the red cars are banned, the reckless drivers will no longer drive, and as a result save lives. What's wrong with this reasoning?

[jwillis]

The reason why I eliminated C was because I reasoned that if the red cars are banned, the reckless drivers will no longer drive, and as a result save lives. What's wrong with this reasoning?

What makes you think that those reckless drivers must drive red cars? Can you see how you mistakenly assumed that idea from what's actually said?

[hnadgauda]

The reason why I eliminated C was because I reasoned that if the red cars are banned, the reckless drivers will no longer drive, and as a result save lives. What's wrong with this reasoning?

What makes you think that those reckless drivers must drive red cars? Can you see how you mistakenly assumed that idea from what's actually said?

So I guess my mistake was assuming that the drivers who drive red cards would stop driving altogether. That is out of scope and not stated in any premise.

[lunazhuyu]

Well I actually have problem on (E).

Why can't E be the correct answer? Since the third sentence said "If the claim is true then lives could be saved by banning red cars." Seems to me this sentence has established the link between red cars and death: riding on red cars causes death, which is what E said.

[AndyM495]

E reads: "makes an unsupported assumption that every automobile accident results in some loss of life"

"If this claim is true, then lives could undoubtedly be saved by banning red cars from the roads altogether," does not necessarily imply that every automobile accident results in some loss of life. It implies that some automobile accidents result in some loss of life, but there is no specific verbage used here which implies that all auto accidents result in death.

It would have to read something like "If this claim is true, then a life would be saved every time a car accident occurs if we ban red cars," for E to be correct.