BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

1000CR-Test-2-Q14

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:03 am
Thanked: 2 times

1000CR-Test-2-Q14

by aiming800 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:21 pm
Hi Guys,

Can i have your views on the answer choices of the below questions? Greatly confused!!!:-(


Stuart could you please help me out?



A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?


(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.



Cheers,
:-)
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
MBA Student
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:32 pm
Thanked: 98 times
Followed by:22 members

by fibbonnaci » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:36 pm
This question has been exhaustively discussed in the forum. GMAT Expert, Testluv has responded to this question too. I see that you are new to the forum. Please search the forum before you post any question.

Here is the link: https://www.beatthegmat.com/dole-country-t48865.html
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:44 pm
I'm not Stuart, but I'll do my best to help

Although 80% seems impressively high, we need to know whether this figure means that a disproportionate percentage of injuries are suffered by accident victims who were not wearing seatbelts. What if only 5% of the drivers and front-seat passengers in accidents were wearing seatbelts? Then these 5% suffer 20% of the injuries, suggesting that people are better off not to wear seatbelts!

Thus A is the underlying assumption!

B need not be true for the argument to be logical, as we are concerned only about accident victims.
Last edited by kevincanspain on Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:03 am
Thanked: 2 times

by aiming800 » Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:47 pm
Hi Kevin,
Thanks a bunch for your quick reply,but i am sorry to say that i still didn't understand the

logic behind the answer A.

I think it is better if we discuss it with the help of assuming some actual. So here we go....




Say,Number of all auto accident victims = 100

Suppose out of these 100, number of severely injured drivers and front -seat passengers=90(very much possible)


so number of non-severly injured drivers and front-seat passengers=10


Now as the question states 80% of these severly injured drivers and front-seat passengers i.e; 72(80%of 90)

were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. Which inturn means that 18 out of these 90 were

wearing seat belts.


Now if we consider the option A to be correct which says more than 20% say 21% of all the drivers and front-seat
passengers in the survey i.e; 21(21% of 100) were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.Now as we
have already calculated 18 out of these 21 are those drivers and front-seat passengers who got severly injured.
So the rest 3 are from the group who got non-severly injured.



So we have the following data now with us according to the survey


Number of all auto accident victims = 100

Number of severly injured victims who didn't wear seat belts: 72
Number of severly injured victims who did wear seat belts: 18


Number of nonseverly injured victims who didn't wear seat belts: 7
Number of nonseverly injured victims who did wear seat belts: 3


After looking at the above data which has been obtained by keeping the assumption A in mind,could you please explain how the assumption A helps in reaching the conclusion that by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.


I hope i am clear with my analysis. Please correct me if i am wrong somewhere in obtaining the above data.


Thanks,
:-)
Last edited by aiming800 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 613
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:17 am
Location: madrid
Thanked: 171 times
Followed by:64 members
GMAT Score:790

by kevincanspain » Sat Mar 20, 2010 2:30 pm
18/21 of those wearing seat belts were injured, whereas 72/79 not wearing seat belts were injured. Since 72/79 is more than 90% and 18/21 is less than 90%, the seatbelt seems to protect accident victims from injury.

You may be thinking that the seatbelt in your example doesn't greatly reduce the number of injuries, and you're right. However, the conclusion is properly drawn only if A is true. Don't think that you are asked to find a statement that proves that the conclusion is properly drawn, but rather a statement whose converse would invalidate the line of reasoning.

Remember, A is not a guarantee that the conclusion is correct, but rather a necessary condition. If A is false, the conclusion is absurd.
Kevin Armstrong
GMAT Instructor
Gmatclasses
Madrid
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:03 am
Thanked: 2 times

by aiming800 » Sun Mar 21, 2010 2:36 am
Hi Kevin,

Thanks a lot for the explanation. This seems to be clear now,but i must say this was really really tough and tricky.I hope you agree:-)


Just to bother you a little more:-) i have problem with one more CR question which i have posted in the below link


https://www.beatthegmat.com/1000-cr-doubt-t54871.html


it will be really helpful if you can also help me with the above.


Thanks,
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1