|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1305
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
57
[1] , given: 0
|
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]
30 Mar 2009, 01:38
1
This post received KUDOS
Question Stats:
48% (03:22) correct
51% (02:11) wrong based on 2 sessions
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. (C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. (D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 921
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
123
[0], given: 18
|
Tricky. I go with D. We limit our scope to drivers+front seat passengers, only D in a way strengthens this conclusion by saying more than 50% in the survey were not wearing => 80% injured was a big amount. What is OA? I may be wrong.. this is interesting. ritula wrote: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. (C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. (D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 10
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
i think ans is C which states c)More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
What if the majority of the people injured are sitting in the rear seat . making seat belts mandatory for front seat passengers wont help them .
D ) is explicitly mentioned in the statement, so it doesnt add any further support to the argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 656
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
104
[0], given: 6
|
IMO A. I was confused between A and D but finally opted A. ritula wrote: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. -- OOS (C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. -- OOS (D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury. -- OOS
We have to find out why argument believes "wearing seat belts, ... can greatly reduce . risk"? Of course some proof is required to stand this point. A) see the blue part: were wearing - this does validate the claim D) were not wearing - this does not validate the claim [extra line of assumption is precarious on GMAT]
_________________
If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 8
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. -- OOS (B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. -- OOS (C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. -- Right answer choice (D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. -- True, but doesn't add any support to the statement to draw conclusion. (E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury. -- OOS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 375
Location: PDX
Followers: 5
Kudos [?]:
53
[0], given: 24
|
Premise: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents Conclusion: By wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident. Answer is asking for an additional premise to strengthen the conclusion: (A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. - Perfect. Of all the people in the survey 80% of those injured didn't wear seat belts, 20% wore seat belts - which strengthens the conclusion(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. - Always has no relevance, the argument talks about accidental impact.(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. - Doesn't add anything to strengthen the conclusion(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. Nothing to support or strengthen the conclusion(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury. Out of Scope
_________________
In the land of the night, the chariot of the sun is drawn by the grateful dead
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1442
Followers: 28
Kudos [?]:
152
[0], given: 1
|
ritula wrote: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident.
The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true?
(A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
If 80% are NOT wearing SB, How can more than 20% wear SB? Wrong.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
Expands scope to all drivers. Wrong
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
Premise gives a statistic and conclusion makes a judgment on how severity of injuries can be reduced. So seems to connect them.
(D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents.
Isnt this a restatement or possibly contradiction of the premise. more than 50% means could be <=80% or more than 80%
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
If they dont involve any serious injury at all, belts do not help any thing.
Assumption Q based on connect the premise and conclusion or fill the logical gap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1305
Followers: 9
Kudos [?]:
57
[0], given: 0
|
OA is A
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 112
Followers: 8
Kudos [?]:
105
[3] , given: 0
|
3
This post received KUDOS
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident. The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true? Explanation: -------------------- ( A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. ---> We know from the excerpt that Drivers + Front-Seat Passengers = Severely Injured (20% Wearing Seat-Belts + 80% Not Wearing Seat-Belts) + Not Severely Injured (No Information)Now, what if more than 80% of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were NOT wearing seat-belts? Using this scenario, we can say that wearing seat-belts will NOT reduce the risk of being severely injured. So the conclusion cannot be properly drawn. Since we have to show that author's conclusion was properly drawn, we have to show that the scenario I cited above was not possible. To make the above scenario impossible, we can say that more than 80% (actually it should be 100% otherwise these people will come under the category of ‘severely injured’ ones) of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were wearing seat-belts. Also, excerpt mentions that 20% people from the severely injured category were wearing seat-belts. So, if we add people (who were wearing seat-belts) from both the categories (severely injured & not severely injured), we'll arrive at the assumption stated in this option. ( B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. ---> Mentions about car. Irrelevant. ( C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. ---> Will not help us in any way to prove that the conclusion was properly drawn. ( D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. ---> This cannot be the assumption in order to arrive at the author’s conclusion. ( E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury. ---> Irrelevant. -------------------- Hope that helps. Regards, Technext
_________________
+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++ +++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++
~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 29 May 2009
Posts: 28
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. This indicates that, by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured if they are in an auto accident. The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true? (A) Of all the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey, more than 20 percent were wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. (C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. (D) More than half of the drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents. (E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Pls Attach Explanation With your Ans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
9
[2] , given: 0
|
2
This post received KUDOS
A is correct. Lets say there were 100 cases of "serious" accident. Then 80 of those cases were not wearing seat-belts according to the author. But 20 were. So the author assumes that wearing seat-belts can prevent serious accidents. How can that be? There are 20 cases of serious accident that were wearing seat belts! Then how can the author claim that seat-belts can prevent serious accidents? The only way this can happen is if more than 20 people in the auto-accident survey were wearing seat belts and were not seriously hurt. Choice A provides us with that number- it says more than 20% of ALL accident cases were wearing seat-belts at the time of the accident. Now 20% of ALL cases has to be > 20% of serious cases since "serious cases" is a sub-group of all cases. Hence answer A.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2010
Posts: 3
Followers: 0
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
Though A is not a straight forward choice to this question, this is the most appropriate choice.
since the answer must support the conclusion. negating the correct choice must negate the conclusion.
C and E are out of scope. negating D doesn't have any affect on conclusion. Since B dictates a general truth and doesn't comment about the representative sample in the survey, choice B can be ignored.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 10 Nov 2010
Posts: 270
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GMAT 1: 520 Q42 V19 GMAT 2: 540 Q44 V21
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 22
|
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]
22 Mar 2012, 03:19
Guys don't you think B can also be correct
_________________
The proof of understanding is the ability to explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Manager
Joined: 13 Mar 2012
Posts: 374
Concentration: Operations, Strategy
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 31
|
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]
22 Mar 2012, 05:38
good question indeed took me time to figure out whats going with the options
_________________
Practice Practice and practice...!!
If my reply /analysis is helpful-->please press KUDOS If there's a loophole in my analysis--> suggest measures to make it airtight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Status: I will not stop until i realise my goal which is my dream too
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Posts: 248
Followers: 2
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 16
|
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]
22 Mar 2012, 09:02
i go with D too...for the same reasons mentioned by folks above.... because prose says 80% of them who had not worn seat belts were severly injured...so more than 50% were not wearing the set belts support it... isnt it?
_________________
Regards, Harsha
Note: Give me kudos if my approach is right , else help me understand where i am missing.. I want to bell the GMAT Cat
Satyameva Jayate - Truth alone triumphs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 174
Location: India
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
25
[0], given: 24
|
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]
23 Mar 2012, 03:17
A over B because a relates directly to the participants of the survey. Wins over B because survey is not necessarily a representative sample of dole county. (for example: survey could have lower proportion of drivers and front seat passengers who war seat belts)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County
[#permalink]
23 Mar 2012, 03:17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|