Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and [#permalink]

Show Tags

03 Apr 2010, 02:13

1

This post received KUDOS

3

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

47% (02:49) correct
53% (01:27) wrong based on 106 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5. (B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years. (C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant. (D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2. (E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

Argument says: % of serious accidents rose 20% but child fatality rose only 10% so child fatality must have been reduced by safety gear

But what if the proportion of accidents invloving child fatalities itself decreased by lets say 90%,then the proportioante rise in death of children under 4 should have been somewhere around 2% which is far less than 10%.

Here the stimulus comes in to say that No,THE PRPORTION REMAINED SAME and clarifies that no such decrease took place and seals the argument.

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.

I'm newbie in CR. Maybe I undeerstood wrong all conception of the Strengthen questions. I thought the answer is A. We need to prove cause, and the cause here is 'increase of child fatalities'. And the effect is "doubling children seates by children aged 4 and under". so, answer A says "yes, increase of child fatalities was because seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5" Can somebody explaine where my mistake is, please?

B is closer. We can rule out A since we are only looking at kids <= 4yrs of age and data pertaining to that. the key here in the question is that we have to focus on accident numbers of kids 4 yr and under....hope this helps

The conclusion - It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred.

Best supporting premise: fatalities that otherwise would have occurred.

HAS PREVENTED is the catch here. If the safety seats has preveneted the fatalities for the 8 yrs then the use of safety seats is justified. Choice B is indicating this.

(B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.

arghya05 wrote:

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5. (B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years. (C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant. (D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2. (E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

Want to improve your CR: http://gmatclub.com/forum/cr-methods-an-approach-to-find-the-best-answers-93146.html Tricky Quant problems: http://gmatclub.com/forum/50-tricky-questions-92834.html Important Grammer Fundamentals: http://gmatclub.com/forum/key-fundamentals-of-grammer-our-crucial-learnings-on-sc-93659.html

When I encounter question that is too time consuming to understand, I just scan the keyword in each answer choice for POE: (A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.-Children over 5 is out of scope (B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.-proportion is usually related to %-keep this one (C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.- again out of scope (D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.-not pertaining to the subject matter (E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.- not pertaining to subject matter

Going back to B, I still cant understand how they are related, but since every other choice is out of scope, I would keep B , finger crossed of course

The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred, because although the number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years, the total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period. Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument? (A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5. (B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years. (C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant. (D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2. (E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.

Conclusion:The increase in the use of automobile safety has prevented child fatalities Evidence : The use of automobile safety seats by children aged 4 and under has nearly doubled in the past 8 years. The number of children aged 4 and under who were killed while riding in cars involved in accidents rose 10 percent over the past 8 years The total number of serious automobile accidents rose by 20 percent during that period.

Note ,how suttle the difference is ,the conclusion talks of preventing child fatalities and evidence talks of serious automobile accidents which can include children ,teenagers ,etc all age groups ,But if its given liek in (B)that the proportion of serious fatalities in children amongst this vast group remained same ,it definitedly strengthens the conclusion ,

For example let in 1900 ,the no of child accident =100,in 1908 it shall be 110 (10%more)

let total no of serious accidents in 1900=1000 ,in 1908 it shall be 1200 (20%more)but we know that child fatalities are fixed at 10% proportion ,so compared to other age group fatalities ,they have decreased if we are to assume that their proportion is fixed over the last 10 years ,a period during which serious accidents over other age groups rose over 20%.

I'm currently working on CR with the PowerScore bible, so I'll apply their techniques:

First find the conclusion (if any):

Quote:

It is clear that this increase has prevented child fatalities that otherwise would have occurred

Now we need to find answers that strengthen this conclusion. Well, except B they do not add any value to the conclusion, as they mostly bring in irrelevant information.

When I encounter question that is too time consuming to understand, I just scan the keyword in each answer choice for POE: (A) Some of the automobile safety seats purchased for children under 4 continue to be used after the child reaches the age of 5.-Children over 5 is out of scope (B) The proportion of serious automobile accidents involving child passengers has remained constant over the past 8 years.-proportion is usually related to %-keep this one (C) Children are taking more trips in cars today than they were 8 years ago, but the average total time they spend in cars has remained constant.- again out of scope (D) The sharpest increase in the use of automobile safety seats over the past 8 years has been for children over the age of 2.-not pertaining to the subject matter (E) The number of fatalities among adults involved in automobile accidents rose by 10 percent over the past 8 years.- not pertaining to subject matter

Going back to B, I still cant understand how they are related, but since every other choice is out of scope, I would keep B , finger crossed of course

Thanks for the explanation.

gmatclubot

Re: good cr please slove
[#permalink]
02 Sep 2010, 12:29

After days of waiting, sharing the tension with other applicants in forums, coming up with different theories about invites patterns, and, overall, refreshing my inbox every five minutes to...

I was totally freaking out. Apparently, most of the HBS invites were already sent and I didn’t get one. However, there are still some to come out on...

In early 2012, when I was working as a biomedical researcher at the National Institutes of Health , I decided that I wanted to get an MBA and make the...