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

Redeem

Complicated CR Question

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:21 am

Complicated CR Question

by thegmatbeater » Sun May 25, 2008 7:43 am
1. Based on comprehensive longitudinal studies of accident prevention, several states have passed laws requiring children under the age of 18 to wear helmets when they roller blade. Yet a surprising result has been observed. Even though a large number of children wear helmets while roller blading, more head injuries than expected have been reported. This result persists, even though the studies have clearly shown that wearing a helmet reduces the incidence of head injuries.

Which of the following statements, if true, best explains the unexpected finding?

(A) A large number of parents are not complying with the law regarding helmets for their children
(B) More children are roller blading now than when the helmet law was introduced
(C) More accidents are reported now, in compliance with state insurance laws
(D) Many children do not properly secure the helmet's chin strap, and the helmet does not work properly
(E) Helmets were not designed to prevent all head injuries, so it is not surprising that they still occur
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:17 pm

by hema123 » Sun May 25, 2008 8:46 am
In My Opinion , Answer is D.

It asks us to find out the inconsistency. Even when Helmets are proposed to be safe , many childern are getting injured. The only factor responsible for this would be that childern are not wearing it properly. Hence there is no fault in the proposal but the implementation is not correct.

What's the OA?
Top
User avatar
Newbie | Next Rank: 10 Posts
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 2:17 pm

by hema123 » Sun May 25, 2008 9:17 am
In My Opinion , Answer is D.

It asks us to find out the inconsistency. Even when Helmets are proposed to be safe , many childern are getting injured. The only factor responsible for this would be that childern are not wearing it properly. Hence there is no fault in the proposal but the implementation is not correct.

What's the OA?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 114
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:21 am

by thegmatbeater » Sun May 25, 2008 11:19 pm
The answer is D. I thought that the reported accidents may increase so the absolute number of injuries increase because such type of answers are common in CR questions (analyzing the proportion and absolute value )
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:44 am
Thanked: 26 times

by chidcguy » Mon May 26, 2008 3:50 pm
I fell for C as well.

I am not sure where the Q asks us to find the inconsistency. It only asks us to explain the unexpected finding. Also the stimulus says that "even though the studies have clearly shown that wearing a helmet reduces the incidence of head injuries."

By selecting D, aren't we going down a very narrow choice ( I understand it might sound very close, by saying that plan is correct, but implementation is wrong). We can't tell for sure whether children are wearing them properly or not. There is a good chance that the children are wearing them properly, but the agencies are reporting them now. What goes against C is the intro of insurance laws, which is not mentioned at all in the stimulus. If it was being reported by the normal state agencies or if the stimulus has mentioned the insurance companies in the stimuli. it would have been more difficult.

What is the source of this Q?
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 7:32 am
Thanked: 2 times

Why B is not correct?

by nil4700 » Mon May 26, 2008 6:34 pm
I think choice B is also in favor of the unexpected finding. But what is the reason that we have to eliminate this option? Increase in number of children participating may increase the number of accidents. Right?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 1:02 am
Thanked: 12 times

by jasonc » Mon May 26, 2008 11:04 pm
'more head injuries than expected have been reported.'

increase in number of kids skating would increase the expected # of incidents
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 10:11 pm

by rattanas » Tue May 27, 2008 2:35 am
i guess B cant be the option as even more children have started rollerblading..the children who would go against the law of not wearin helmet wont be significant enough for the unexpected results...

D gives the best explanation.....
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:26 am

by khanshainur » Tue May 10, 2016 5:34 am
i think it's D
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1