Critical Reasoning

I do not have the official answer but thi s is a question from Kaplan. Any advice on this will be much appreciated.

Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players

B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances

C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks

D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues

E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries

I think it should be D.

i'd do with A here. if those players are already cautious players to begin with then helmets are probably not that critical in preventing head injuries.

The Conclusion identified: hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries

we are asked to WEAKEN this. D says player who wore helmets still suffered injuries. therefore helmets are NOT critical in preventing head injuries. This was my line of thought. and why I selecetd D.

Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
It is okay those players were prone to fight more, but how does it impact the head injuries. It talks about player not the injuries...
B) Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
-> Okay it might reduce performance, so wat, it is not going to impact the conclusion.
C) Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
-> Might be true, It must be correct...
D) Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
-> Adaptation of the helmets did nothing in another league... quite weakens the argument. But still means head injuries are there, but these injuries may be less or high, that is unknown.
E) Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
-> Out of Scope...

Experts pls help here !

[spoiler]I'll go with A ![/spoiler]

[spoiler]A) Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were **less likely** to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players ....but were *more likely* to get injured while playing ???[/spoiler]

At first i got confused between 2 options :
A and C
then I focused on the language written in Option C :
It says "sometimes constructed", which means not always so we can ignore this option.

IMO : A

I would go with A. C is irrelevant.
Construction does not matter & is not giving related information.
Confused between A and D

We need to show link between helmet involvement in the game and accidents
Premise: Use helmet-> would be safety
hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.


Weaken: Without helmet still game be a safety one.
So A.

could someone explain more elaborately why c is wrong ?

Can someone explain why D is wrong ?

The conclusion of the argument is "Hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries"

How the author has arrived on the conclusion --------- by taking case of the players who wear helmets and have got 20% less injuries.

And, A attacks on the base of the conclusion. (Alternate Cause) A says that the less injuries are not due to helmets but due to extra caution.

D says that there are injuries despite the helmets. Yes, it's ok. The conclusion never says that there is no injury after wearing helmets; it only says that there is less injury.

Thanks Ron for showing us the light !
Regards,
~Himu.