This question is a good example of a trick that is very common within GMAT critical reasoning questions. The question includes a subtle but very important scope shift. The cycling enthusiast argues that most bicycle accidents are minor (do not cause more than a scrape), and therefore mandatory helmet use would only marginally decrease the number of serious injuries caused by cycling. The scope shift is between accidents in general and serious accidents. If over 90% of accidents do not cause more than a scrape, then obviously these accidents are not causing serious injuries. In order to weaken this argument, we need to demonstrate that helmets would help reduce serious injuries in the other sub-10% of more serious accidents.
A - Out of scope. Whether bicyclists currently own a helmet is completely irrelevant to whether helmet use would decrease the number of serious injuries.
B - Out of scope. Costs of helmets vs. medical care has nothing to do with this argument.
C - OPPOSITE. This Strengthens the argument. It does not weaken it. Be on the lookout for traps like these.
D - Out of scope. Number of injuries there vs. other areas is irrelevant. We simply care about whether the new ordinance would reduce injuries.
E - Nails it. If most serious injuries are due to head trauma, then it would make sense that mandatory helmet usage would reduce serious injuries. This weakens the argument effectively, and is the correct answer.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
If you found this post helpful, please give me kudos!!!
Save $100 on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
Veritas Prep Reviews