It is currently 27 Jun 2017, 20:56

### 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
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 322
Location: dallas , tx
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 15:42
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

100% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 4 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.
_________________

shubhangi

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 461
Location: In the middle of nowhere

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 15:47
Is it D...
We are supposed to stregthen the stem...and D does it.

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"

Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 293
Location: US

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 15:54
C?

(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.

Who cares? Irrelevant.

(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.

Yep. Shows that a lot of drivers will benefit from wearing their seat belts.

(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.

Has nothing to do with their injuries.

(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.

Out of scope.[/b]
Senior Manager
Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 322
Location: dallas , tx

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 16:06
me to C.. but OA says diff..
_________________

shubhangi

Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 16:17
This question is best of the best
My guess is A
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1790
Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 16:44

Can you explain your logic. I know the answer for this Q and a perfect explaination as well. I would like to know if your thinking is different. CRs with percentages can kill many people.

Anand.
Director
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 652

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 17:01
anandnk wrote:

Can you explain your logic. I know the answer for this Q and a perfect explaination as well. I would like to know if your thinking is different. CRs with percentages can kill many people.

Anand.

The key is "different percentages."
The sum of the more tha 20%(from A) and 80%(from Q stem)
Thus, conclusion baesd on this informtion should be wrong!
Thus, A

Does this make sense?

But, I don't know how to invalidate the other answer choices?
SVP
Joined: 30 Oct 2003
Posts: 1790
Location: NewJersey USA

### Show Tags

18 Feb 2004, 17:54

You cannot reason like that. The argument says "Of the people who were injured 80% were not wearing seat belts".
Let us say of 100 people 60 got injured and 80% of these people(48) not wearing seat belts. According to A) let us assume "Of all the front seat passengers and drivers 54%( which is > 20% ) were wearing seat belts". Then the percentages do add up.

Anand.

Here is the anlysis....

Assume no one ever wears a seat belt while driving. Then if the people are injured during accidents, can you say they should wear seat belts for safety ? May be or may be not. No one will believe unless you provide proof that seat belts do protect.

To make a conclusive argument it should be shown that Atleast in few incidents people who wear seat belts did not get injured. Only then you can compare incidents in which people who did not wear belts got injured vs people who wore seat belts and nothing happened.

This is what A is saying. A would be correct even if it says "atleast few people who were wearing seat belts did not get injured"

I hope I explained it well. Do you really want to know why other choices are not good?
Manager
Joined: 09 Jun 2003
Posts: 187
Location: work chair

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2004, 03:14
can not explain, but guess, it is (d)
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2003
Posts: 461
Location: In the middle of nowhere

### Show Tags

19 Feb 2004, 08:23
Looking at Anand and KPadma's discussion the answer seems to be A...

Vivek.
_________________

"Start By Doing What Is Necessary ,Then What Is Possible & Suddenly You Will Realise That You Are Doing The Impossible"

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Posts: 400
Location: India

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2004, 10:03
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.

Please read the inital sentence again "of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents" If we look at this statement carefully, if there were in total 100 Injured drivers and Front seat Passengers, then out of this 100 80 were not wearing seatbelts.
Anand your argument would have been right if the statement reads the way you have mentioned in your response
So considering this only assumption which fits this scenario is (C) because of rest of them either weaken the conclusion or it refers to the evidence given in the stimulus.

I think the actuall RC has different wordings! Not sure though!!
_________________

Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 344

### Show Tags

20 Feb 2004, 12:30
Although A is correct because it is the only correct one among the options listed, I have issues w/ it.
If 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents, it's implicit that 20% were wearing seatbelts.

The question asks: The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true? As if 20% were wearing seatbelts is not already mentioned, and needs to be added as a validator.

See my point!
20 Feb 2004, 12:30
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
1 A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County 6 17 Dec 2009, 11:58
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County 2 25 Jul 2009, 04:14
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County 1 20 May 2008, 18:05
1 A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County 11 05 May 2008, 10:59
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County 1 10 Jul 2007, 11:11
Display posts from previous: Sort by