Don’t lose your progress!

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Up to 90+ points GMAT score improvement guarantee

The best guarantee you’ll find

Our Premium and Ultimate plans guarantee up to 90+ points score increase or your money back.

Master each section of the test

Comprehensive GMAT prep

We cover every section of the GMAT with in-depth lessons, 5000+ practice questions and realistic practice tests.

Schedule-free studying

Learn on the go

Study whenever and wherever you want with our iOS and Android mobile apps.

The most effective way to study

Personalized GMAT prep, just for you!

Adaptive learning technology focuses on your academic weaknesses.

Critical Reasoning: Conclusion Weakening Questions

Fatality percentages for road accidents involving motorized two-wheelers are higher than those involving four-wheelers yet lower than those involving non-motorized two wheelers. However, since the number of accidents involving non-motorized two-wheelers is so small, legislation around this form of transport is not crucial at this time. Therefore, the road safety association's proposal to alter the legislation so that it ceases to allow motorized two-wheelers the use of public roads will lead to a drastic decline in the overall number of fatal accidents.

Which of the following casts the most doubt on the possible success of the road safety association's proposal?

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice only explains what the first premise has already told us - motorbikes are more dangerous (less safe) than cars. This statement cannot help us undermine the conclusion since it merely supports an already established part of the argument.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice deals with the issue of bicycle-related accidents. Since the conclusion is a proposal of a method to combat motorbike injuries, a statement that doesn't refer to motorbikes in anyway cannot help us undermine the conclusion.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice is beside the point. The road safety association's proposal involves one specific method - not allowing motorbikes on roads. Although other methods may also contribute to road safety, the conclusion focuses only on the value of a specific method.

Incorrect.

[[snippet]]

This answer choice strengthens the conclusion, but you were supposed to weaken it. If the law would make people use motorbikes in safer conditions only, then it will indeed lead to less fatalities.

Fabulous!

[[snippet]]

This answer choice weakens the logic of the proposal. If people who were not allowed to use motorcycles move to bicycles, then fatality numbers will rise, as we are told in the first premise that bicycle accidents have the highest fatality rate.

While manufacturers are constantly developing safety features that regular four-wheelers are then fitted with, these features, often becoming international industry standards, can almost never be applied to motorized two-wheelers.
Fatality percentages for accidents involving non-motorized two-wheelers can easily be reduced since in a large number of such cases, victims were not wearing the appropriate safety gear while it has been proven that such gear can reduce the risk of death by up to 80%.
The overall number of fatal accidents can be reduced greatly by improving the surfaces and organization of the actual roads, thereby providing conditions that are safer for the drivers of all types of vehicles.
Passing a law that prevents the use of motorized two-wheelers on public roads will encourage the use of such vehicles for recreational purposes which, due to the lower speeds and reduced interaction with of four-wheeled vehicles, will probably not yield high fatality numbers.
Since most of the commuters that use motorized two-wheelers do so because they cannot afford the use of four-wheelers, if such a law would be passed, these commuters would begin to use non-motorized two-wheelers.