CR_E019. CAT – BOLD FACE 42.

44 ACCURACY

Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the latest technology to improve the safety of drivers on
the road. To determine the effectiveness of this technology, a study was recently conducted by
the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI) in various models equipped with the technology.
According to the HDLI, the technology seems to work well in Volvo cars. The researchers
found that individuals driving the Volvo XC60—a specific model equipped with CAT—reported
27 percent fewer auto insurance claims than those driving other comparable vehicles. However,
with the exception of Volvo cars, the research so far does not conclusively establish the role of
CAT in preventing catastrophic auto accidents, mainly because individuals who do have access
to these systems possibly do not use it responsibly.

In the argument given, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?

A. The first provides a fact whose validity is questioned by the author; the second provides
a reason to support the position taken by the argument.
B. The first provides a conclusion that is not disputed by the argument; the second provides
a consideration that supports the main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first states a conclusion whose validity is questioned in the argument; the second
provides a consideration to question the validity of that conclusion.
D. The first is a fact that supports the conclusion refuted by the argument; the second is a
reason for the position that the argument as a whole seeks to establish.
E. The first is a conclusion that the author agrees with; the second is a reason that goes
against that conclusion.

CORRECT ANSWER: B

SOLUTION

PASSAGE ANALYSIS
Collision Avoidance Technology (CAT) is the This is a fact which tells us that CAT is the
latest technology to improve the safety of latest technology to improve the safety of
drivers on the road. drivers on the road.
To determine the effectiveness of this This statement presents a fact as well. We
technology, a study was recently conducted learn here that a study was recently
by the Highway Data Loss Institute (HDLI) in conducted by HDLI to determine the
various models equipped with the effectiveness of the technology mentioned in
technology. the previous statement.

This study was conducted in various models

equipped with CAT.
According to the HDLI, the technology BF1 presents an opinion by HDLI. Note the
seems to work well in Volvo cars. use of the word ‘seems’ here, which makes it
clear that it is an opinion.

The researchers found that individuals
driving the Volvo XC60—a specific model
equipped with CAT—reported 27 percent
fewer auto insurance claims than those
driving other comparable vehicles.
HDLI says that CAT appears to work well in
Volvo cars.
This statement is a fact. It presents a finding
by the researchers that individuals driving a
specific model equipped with CAT – Volvo
XC60 – reported 27% fewer auto insurance
claims than the claims reported by drivers of
comparable vehicles.

This statement is the basis for HDLI’s claim in

However, with the exception of Volvo cars,
the research so far does not conclusively
establish the role of CAT in preventing
catastrophic auto accidents,
the previous sentence – CAT seems to work
well in Volvo cars.
This portion is the conclusion presented by
the author. The author says that leaving
aside Volvo Cars, the research conducted
regarding CAT doesn’t thoroughly establish
its role in preventing catastrophic auto
accidents.

mainly because individuals who do have
access to these systems possibly do not
use it responsibly.
BF2 is an opinion (note the use of the word-
possibly) presented by the author in support
of his conclusion presented in the previous
statement. The premise marker “because”
points towards the same.

The author says that it is quite possible that

individuals who have access to CAT don’t use
it responsibly.

PRE-THINKING
The question requires us to identify the roles played by the two bold faced statements w.r.t. the
conclusion of the argument. So let’s look at the relationship between the two boldface portions,
keeping our analysis of these portions (as presented in the passage analysis) in mind:

Main conclusion :…with the exception of Volvo cars, the research so far does not conclusively
establish the role of CAT in preventing catastrophic auto accidents

Bold-face portion 1 (BF1): the technology seems to work well in Volvo cars

BF1 is a conclusion presented by HDLI on the basis of the study regarding CAT. The main
conclusion agrees with the above.

Bold-face portion 2 (BF2): individuals who do have access to these systems possibly do not
use it responsibly

BF2 is an opinion of the author which supports the main conclusion of the argument.

With this understanding in mind, let’s take a look at the option statements.

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS

 A. The first provides a fact whose
validity is questioned by the
author; the second provides a
reason to support the position
taken by the argument.
B. The first provides a conclusion
that is not disputed by the
argument; the second provides a
consideration that supports the
main conclusion of the argument.
C. The first states a conclusion whose
validity is questioned in the argument;
the second provides a consideration to
question the validity of that
conclusion.
D. The first is a fact that supports the
conclusion refuted by the argument;
the second is a reason for the position
that the argument as a whole seeks to
establish.
E. The first is a conclusion that the author Incorrect – Both parts wrong
agrees with; the second is a reason BF1 is a conclusion by HDLI that the author
that goes against that conclusion.
Incorrect – 1st part wrong
BF1 is not a fact but an opinion by HDLI. Also,
its validity is not being questioned by the
author as the main conclusion acknowledges
that BF1 is an exception. BF2 does provide a
reason to support the main conclusion.
Correct
Both boldface portions have been identified
along the lines of our pre-thinking. BF1 is
HDLI’s conclusion and it is not being
challenged by the main conclusion that clearly
says – “with the exception of Volvo cars.”
BF2 can definitely be called a consideration
that supports the main conclusion.
Incorrect – Both parts wrong
BF1 is a conclusion by HDLI but its validity is
not being questioned in the argument. In fact
the main conclusion does accept this
conclusion.
BF2 isn’t a consideration which questions the
validity of BF1. BF2 supports the main
conclusion, which in turn accepts BF1.
Incorrect – 1st part wrong
BF1 is not a fact. It is a conclusion by HDLI.
Also, it doesn’t support any conclusion that is
refuted by the argument. In fact, there is no
conclusion here that is being refuted by the
argument.
BF2 does provide a reason for the main
conclusion.
agrees with.
BF2 doesn’t go against BF1. It actually
supports the main conclusion, which in turn
accepts BF1.