Can you please explain why E seems to be the best choice here?
A. Most cyclists do not currently own bike helmets- If this is the case, then the cyclist point will be supported- Actually strengthens the argument- So eliminate.
B. The cost of buying a proper bike helmet is significantly less than possible medical costs due to injury- This is irrelevant, since we don't need this information about of the cost of buying the helmet- out of scope.
C. Helmets have not proven useful in preventing head trauma in biking accidents since the force of the accident often causes the helmet to fall off- Same as A. If helmets are not proven useful, then the cyclist point is supported- Strengthens- So eliminate.
D. In the city where the ordinance was proposed, the number of injuries due to bike accidents was less than the national average- Same as B. Out of scope- We don't need statistics about the number of injuries in the city and in the country.
E. Most of the serious injuries resulting from bike accidents occur due to head trauma- If head trauma causes more injuries to the cyclists. Then the most of cyclist are not wearing the helmet. In this case, proposing an ordinance to mandate wearing the helmet will considerably reduce the injuries and this WEAKEN'S the one cycling enthusiast argument of marginally decrease the number of serious injuries- Correct
With ordinary talent and extraordinary perseverance all things are attainable- Thomas Foxwell Buxton
Rules for posting in Quants Forum || Rules for posting in verbal forum
Improving from V30 to V40 | Improving from Q35-40 to Q47 | Critical Reasoning tricky questions New!!
100 hard CR | 100 hard SC | 100 Hard PS | 100 Hard DS
Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership