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

Redeem

Section - 2 Problem - 14

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

Section - 2 Problem - 14

by camitava » Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:40 am
Guys need ur opinion and explanation also -

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.

OA after some discussion ...
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 9:53 am
Thanked: 2 times

by jan08 » Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:51 pm
I think its D..here is why

The conslusion: "80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents"

this will not be true unless D is true which says

"More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. "

Mathematically, D supports the conclusion..

Hope this helps..
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:33 am
Thanked: 10 times

by sankruth » Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:21 am
IMO its A.

and here is my twisted (hopefully correct) logic...

According to the argument, 20% of people sustained "severe injuries" despite wearing seatbelts. Despite this fact, the argument concludes that wearing seat-belts reduces the risk.

Also, the argument does not explitcitly state if there are pasengers that were not severly injured.

Choice (A) says that in all survey, there were MORE THAN 20% of people wearing seatbelts, which means there were those that were not severly injured and more importantly, they wore seatbelts, thus strengthening the argument!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by camitava » Sun Dec 02, 2007 9:56 pm
sankruth, can u pls explain it more clearly? I am not getting it actually. Yop! The OA is A itself. Guys some more input with explanation - I think - needed here...
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 4:33 am
Thanked: 10 times

by sankruth » Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:43 pm
camitava wrote:sankruth, can u pls explain it more clearly? I am not getting it actually. Yop! The OA is A itself. Guys some more input with explanation - I think - needed here...
Amitava,
I will do my best here...

If you read carefully, the survey included people who had accidents. Thus there could be two categories:
SI - Severely injured and
NSI - not severely injured

However all statistical data is about SI. None about SI

Lets assume there were 100 people who were SI. 80 did not wear a seat-belt, which means 20 wore a seat belt and still got SI. Based on this fact it would be incorrect to conclude that wearing seat-belt reduces the risk of SI.

A states that there were more than 20% who wore seatbelts which includes the 20% that had SI and the rest NSI (the crucial bit) - which was not clear from the argument. So A strengethens the argument by showing there were some people who did not get severely injured because they were wearing seatbelt.

Yes, you can argue that it does not say how many people who had NSI wore seatbelts and for all you know it could be just 1% while 20% sustained SI despite wearing seatbelts. But if you revisit the other options after using this analogy you will find that they do not even go as far as A towards strengethening the argument. Very tricky question indeed! Definetely not at 1m 50sec one!
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 645
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:37 am
Location: India
Thanked: 34 times
Followed by:5 members

by camitava » Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:23 am
Thanks a lot, sankruth... Now I have understood.
Correct me If I am wrong


Regards,

Amitava
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Tue May 10, 2016 3:36 am
i feel it's A
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1