Second hand clothing---Accidental injury

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 2:58 am
Thanked: 1 times

Second hand clothing---Accidental injury

by aditya.j » Mon May 14, 2012 10:41 pm
In America, children who are given secondhand clothing tend to come from households with more children. This makes sense, but what is unusual is that children who wear secondhand clothing also tend to be injured accidentally more often than children who do not wear secondhand clothing.

Which of the following statements best explains the conclusion drawn above?


(A) Children who wear secondhand clothing tend to have parents who are more concerned about their safety and well-being.

(B) Children who wear clothing that doesn't fit well are more likely to get their sleeves and cuffs caught on playground equipment and have accidents.

(C) Younger children who come from larger families tend to get injured accidentally at high rates because they tend to engage in rough play with their older siblings.

(D) The youngest child, who gets the most secondhand clothing, is also the most likely to have an accidental injury.

(E) Secondhand clothing is nearly indistinguishable from clothing bought new.


c

[spoiler] Isnt D wrong cos it speaks only of the youngest child, whereas C speaks about children in general who might be wearing 2nd hand clothing? [/spoiler]

aJ
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:24 am
Location: India
Thanked: 28 times

by mathbyvemuri » Tue May 15, 2012 1:17 am
The understanding is like this:
In families with more number of children, the younger children get cloths of their elder siblings and hence the children who are given second hand clothing tend to come from households with more children.

[spoiler](A)It is opposing the conclusion instead of explaining it.
(B)"The second hand clothing does not fit well", this premise can't be taken granted, as it is not mentioned.
(C)logical
(D)It does not explains the reason for the conclusion, but only supports it.
(E)It's irrelevant[/spoiler]

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1248
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:57 pm
Location: Everywhere
Thanked: 503 times
Followed by:192 members
GMAT Score:780

by Bill@VeritasPrep » Tue May 15, 2012 7:21 am
D doesn't work because the stimulus does not say that more secondhand clothing correlates to more injuries; it simply says that secondhand clothing correlates to more injuries. In other words, the comparison is secondhand vs. not secondhand rather than different levels of secondhand.
Join Veritas Prep's 2010 Instructor of the Year, Matt Douglas for GMATT Mondays

Visit the Veritas Prep Blog

Try the FREE Veritas Prep Practice Test

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:43 am
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:710

by abhi.iitb » Wed May 16, 2012 3:16 am
Can anyone identify the conclusion in the above argument. I have marked B option.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:24 am
Location: India
Thanked: 28 times

by mathbyvemuri » Thu May 17, 2012 4:21 am
abhi.iitb wrote:Can anyone identify the conclusion in the above argument. I have marked B option.
The conclusion is:
"children who wear secondhand clothing also tend to be injured accidentally more often than children who do not wear secondhand clothing".
And it is asked for the logic behind the conclusion.

Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri May 25, 2012 4:26 am

by jackswwagar » Sun May 27, 2012 10:50 pm
I find the second answer is the best one that it is because longer sleeves they feel uncomfortable.

injury lawyer Mississauga