Partoria, large trucks - CR

[RonPurewal]

Attributing fewer accidents to three trailer trucks, author has assumed that replacing one or two trailers trucks with three trailers tucks will reduce the number of accidents. Option B relates the fewer accidents relationship with experience of driver.

Do you have a question? If so, it's not clear what that question is.

(I assume you have some sort of question. This discussion has been dead for 6 months, so it seems unlikely that you're just adding to the existing commentary.)

Please clarify, thanks.

R

[explorer31]

I was rushing through answer choices, so I didn't notice (B). Still, wouldn't you agree that (E) weakens the argument too?

Arg -> increase use of triple trucks.
Problem that the argument causes, if option (e) is true -> maximum capacity of triple truck is less than 3 times the capacity of a single truck. Shippers will not want to reduce profits by carrying lesser payload, and so, will not increase the number of triple trucks.

Am I going way off base here?

the argument is that an increase in the use of triple-trailer trucks, if implemented, would make the highways safer. the forces promoting or inhibiting that change are irrelevant; the argument is only about what would happen if that change actually came to pass.

analogy:
if i lose weight, i will be able to run faster.
--> if you say "it will be difficult for me to lose weight", that would not weaken this claim.

I recently came across this question in a GMATPREP CAT. I chose (E) with following reasoning:

Conclusion: increasing the use of Triple trucks will reduce accidents.
Analysis: Increasing the use of triple trucks might not reduce accidents because author failed to consider something that might play against the conclusion
Choice (E): Triple trucks carry less than three times the load of single truck. This would mean to replace a single trucks, 3 new triple trucks are needed increasing the number of triple trucks on roads, and eventually negating the reduction in accidents achieved by using triple trucks.

Why is my reasoning incorrect? This seems obvious to me.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You write:

to replace a single trucks, 3 new triple trucks are needed

Surely this should be the other way round: to replace 3 single trucks, we need one triple truck?

Sure, answer choice E tells us that "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". So this means that we can't simply turn 3 single trucks into one big truck. Perhaps a triple-trailer truck can only take the same as two single trailer trucks. However, in any case we're still reducing the number of trucks on the road. Since we know that "The very largest trucks—those with three trailers—had less than a third of the accident rate of single- and double-trailer trucks" we're still going to get a double bonus: few trucks, and a lower accident rate per truck. Answer E doesn't weaken the argument.

[explorer31]

sApologize for not clearly stating earlier! However, I understand now why (E) does nothing to the conclusion! Thank you for taking time to reply.

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

You're welcome.