It is currently 24 Sep 2017, 00:08

### GMAT Club Daily Prep

#### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County

Author Message
Manager
Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 76

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Location: New York City
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2006, 12:16
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
_________________

'Hakuna matata'

Kudos [?]: 43 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 751

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

Re: 1000CR - Auto accident victims [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2006, 12:55
punnu_mba 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.

Going with A. We have to show that among people who were wearing seatbelts, the percentage of injuries was less than that among people not wearing seatbelts.

Let the total number of people be 1000. Let the number of injured people be 100. Now number not wearing seatbelts = 80. Number wearing seatbelts = 20.
Now consider:

Of the 1000, 20 people were wearing seatbelts, and 980 were not. This means that 100% of the people wearing seatbelts were inured whereas only (80/980)*100% of the people not wearing seatbelts were injured. This seems to suggest that its safer not to wear seatbelts.

To get the minimum ratio, the percentage of people wearing seatbelts (in the sample set), must exceed 20%...hence A.

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1161

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2006, 18:26
i like D though.

Kudos [?]: 185 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1013

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

18 Sep 2006, 20:08
I would go with B.
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1124

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Location: Bangalore

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2006, 02:49
One more for D.

Kudos [?]: 46 [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 575

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

Location: France

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2006, 04:37
Took long time to get on A.
I drew a table showing 4 combinations Belt, no Belt, Seriously Injured, not seriously injured.

! B ! no B !
---------------------------------------
SI ! 20 ! 80 ! 100
---------------------------------------
no SI! ! !
---------------------------------------
! 200 ! 800 ! 1000(total surveyed)

If A weren't true, then the percentage of people injured wearing belt would be equal or greater than of people not wearing belt. So conclusion wd be false.

B wrong, because the survey could contain 100 with belt and 900 w/o. So considering the table, conclusion wd be wrong also.

D wrong the reasons given above.

Kudos [?]: 123 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 08 Sep 2006
Posts: 123

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2006, 08:46
Would go with A.
We are basically being asked here for the assumption.

A - Says that more than 20% of the accident victims were wearing seat belts. SO lets say 30% were wearing belts, but only 20% got injured, so seat belts DID prevent them from getting injured
B - This option talks of people who are outside the survey, so it is out of scope
C - Again out of scope. The evidence and conclusion are only related to front-seat passengers
D - This in fact weakens the conclusion. If more people who were not wearing belts were involved in accidents then obviously their percentage in those with injuries would be greater.
E - Too random!

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

VP
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1013

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

19 Sep 2006, 19:59
gauravgoyal_g wrote:
Would go with A.
We are basically being asked here for the assumption.

A - Says that more than 20% of the accident victims were wearing seat belts. SO lets say 30% were wearing belts, but only 20% got injured, so seat belts DID prevent them from getting injured
B - This option talks of people who are outside the survey, so it is out of scope
C - Again out of scope. The evidence and conclusion are only related to front-seat passengers
D - This in fact weakens the conclusion. If more people who were not wearing belts were involved in accidents then obviously their percentage in those with injuries would be greater.
E - Too random!

We can take 20.0005% in stead of 30%
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

19 Sep 2006, 19:59
Display posts from previous: Sort by