GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 18 Aug 2018, 07:48

### 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

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 76
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2012, 14:14
i will go with 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.-It contradicts the premise it cannot be more than 20% since 80% people in survey were not wearing
(B)Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.---This doesnot tell us anything,maybe 40% even wore we are talking about people in survey.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
--by wearing seat belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can greatly reduce their risk of being severely injured
This seems to connect the dots, if front seat passengers are seriously injured then seatbelt will surely help 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.-grbgrgrbgrbgr again similar to B
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
o yea same thing happens in my county also
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos

Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 76
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2012, 00:23
KapTeacherEli wrote:
jitgoel 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.

Hi jitgoel,

This problem gives us evidence that 80% of injuries in car accidents are from folks not wearing seat belts. The argument's conclusion is that seat belts work. So, what's missing here? Well, we have no context about the 80%; it sounds scarily high, but we don't actually know that! The authors' assumption is that 80% of injuries makes up a disproportionate number of injuries to non-wearers. After all, if 80% of people don't wear seat belts, it's little surprise they suffered 80% of accidents! (B) tells us that this is not the case; the author's assumption that 80% is significant is in fact correct, and therefore so is his conclusion. (B) is the answer.

Oops i completely missed this one.
Can you let me know why C is wrong?
I thought the question was asking for a premise which can strengthen the conclusion rather than an assumption.
As for (B), "Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car." i thought this this meant some percentage range from 20% to lets say 60% folks wear seat belts, however i'm still having hard time to find out how it is necessary for the conclusion?
_________________

Whatever one does in life is a repetition of what one has done several times in one's life!
If my post was worth it, then i deserve kudos

Intern
Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Posts: 20
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2012, 01:23
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.

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.

Question : which of the following has to be true to draw the above conclusion properly

It talks about auto accident not about every Cars in the city.
So Option ( B ) is ruled out in the first place.
(A) if its true then the same is going to weaken the conclusion
(C) Neither strengthening nor weakening the Conclusion
(D) ( left out ) Correct
(E) irrelevant

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 641
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Sep 2012, 13:24
conty911 wrote:
KapTeacherEli wrote:
jitgoel 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.

Hi jitgoel,

This problem gives us evidence that 80% of injuries in car accidents are from folks not wearing seat belts. The argument's conclusion is that seat belts work. So, what's missing here? Well, we have no context about the 80%; it sounds scarily high, but we don't actually know that! The authors' assumption is that 80% of injuries makes up a disproportionate number of injuries to non-wearers. After all, if 80% of people don't wear seat belts, it's little surprise they suffered 80% of accidents! (B) tells us that this is not the case; the author's assumption that 80% is significant is in fact correct, and therefore so is his conclusion. (B) is the answer.

Oops i completely missed this one.
Can you let me know why C is wrong?
I thought the question was asking for a premise which can strengthen the conclusion rather than an assumption.
As for (B), "Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car." i thought this this meant some percentage range from 20% to lets say 60% folks wear seat belts, however i'm still having hard time to find out how it is necessary for the conclusion?
(C) is irrelevant because it relies on an unstated assumption similar to the one in the main argument--without knowing the total number of front seat drivers versus the number of rear seat passengers, the number of front and rear seat injuries don't actually tell us anything.
_________________

Eli Meyer
Kaplan Teacher
http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Kaplan GMAT Instructor Joined: 25 Aug 2009 Posts: 641 Location: Cambridge, MA Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] ### Show Tags 10 Sep 2012, 10:01 KapTeacherEli wrote: jitgoel 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. Hi jitgoel, This problem gives us evidence that 80% of injuries in car accidents are from folks not wearing seat belts. The argument's conclusion is that seat belts work. So, what's missing here? Well, we have no context about the 80%; it sounds scarily high, but we don't actually know that! The authors' assumption is that 80% of injuries makes up a disproportionate number of injuries to non-wearers. After all, if 80% of people don't wear seat belts, it's little surprise they suffered 80% of accidents! (B) tells us that this is not the case; the author's assumption that 80% is significant is in fact correct, and therefore so is his conclusion. (B) is the answer. Whoops, looks like I missed something on this one! (B) doesn't actually have to be true here. The reason is the word that should have made me suspicious from the get-go: "always." We need more than 20% of Dole County drivers to be wearing seatbelts, yes--but it doesn't have to be the same 20% on any given day. As long as more than 20% of the riders on the road are wearing their seatbelts, the argument is properly reasoned, so (B) is a (subtle) distortion. (A), however, is the correct answer based on my reasoning above--which was the correct reasoning! Remember, the 80% that were injured is only a subset of those surveyed, the severely hurt group. We need to know that, among the group not severely injured, more than 20% were wearing seatbelts, which is what (A) gives us. (C) is irrelevant as I said above--without relative numbers of front- and back- seat passengers, we don't know if more front- or back-seat injuries is actually an interesting result. (D) is wrong because 49/51 and 51/49 splits of seatbelt-to-non-seatbelt-wearers are indistinguishable to us from the perspective of this article. And, (E) is irrelevant, because in that more than half without serious injury, we don't know a thing about proportions who had seat belts. Sorry for the confusion on the OA on this problem, and happy problem solving! _________________ Eli Meyer Kaplan Teacher http://www.kaptest.com/GMAT Prepare with Kaplan and save$150 on a course!

Kaplan Reviews

Manager
Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 229
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

10 Sep 2012, 14:38
Take it easy there, buddy Kap

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

+1 Kudos me - I'm half Irish, half Prussian.

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2011
Posts: 17
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, International Business
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 680 Q46 V37
WE: Project Management (Computer Software)
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2012, 07:26
Hi Eli,

I am still not convinced about A.

Lets say 100 people were surveyed, out of which 20 were severely injured and 80 were not severely injured.

Now, out of 20 Severely injured, 16 (80%) were NOT wearing seat belts, while 4 (20%) were wearing seat belts......Now we do not know anything about the 80 people in the survey who were NOT seriously injured .............Lets say all 80 of them were NOT wearing seat belts.

Now (A) suggests, that at the time of the accident, MORE than 20% were wearing seat belts ..........However, from the example above, we just know that only 4% (of total 100) were wearing seat belts ............so how can we know whether (A) is correct?

Please let me know if my reasoning is correct?

Thanks.
Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2012
Posts: 169
GMAT Date: 11-18-2012
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2012, 08:48
I am still confuse
someone can plz help out
_________________

Thriving for CHANGE

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 293
Location: India
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

23 Jun 2013, 03:59
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?
SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2231
Location: New York, NY
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Jun 2013, 12:24
6
vibhav wrote:
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?

This question is quite confusing - it's likely that the wording would be rephrased on the real exam. It's not clearly presented that there are other groups other than the "severely injured" group. What is the source?

The key point here is in how the information is provided and structured. The survey is for those who got into accident. Now, most readers make the incorrect connection between 'accident' and 'severely injured'. They think that 80% of people got into accident and were seriously injured, the remaining 20% did not get into accident and were safe.

That's incorrect.

The way the information is provided, they are saying that of those that are severely injured (we don't know what portion of the accidents resulted in SEVERE injury but let's say 60% for example or 60 people out of 100) -- 80% did not wear seat belts.

That means out of 60 seriously injured people (out of 100 total), 80% of these 60 did not wear seat belts. Or, 48 did not wear seat belts.

What's important to note is that 20% of these 60 (or 12 people) DID wear a seat belt and still got seriously injured.

So to summarize, 60 people were seriously injured (48 did not wear a seat belt while 12 did). The remaining 40 were more mildly injured and we have no data as to who wore or did not wear seat belts.

The argument is that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of SERIOUS injury. However, we know that 12 people wore a seatbelt and still got seriously injured. How do we know that wearing seat belt can reduce the risk?

Well, it must be the case that people wearing a seatbelt tended to have more mild injuries (part of the 40-person group, not the 60-person serious injury group).

So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt

...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?

If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group.
Manager
Joined: 21 Aug 2012
Posts: 124
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 08:58
GMATPill wrote:
vibhav wrote:
I was able to read option A by POE. but I still dont understand how option A works out. Can an expert comment pls?

This question is quite confusing - it's likely that the wording would be rephrased on the real exam. It's not clearly presented that there are other groups other than the "severely injured" group. What is the source?

The key point here is in how the information is provided and structured. The survey is for those who got into accident. Now, most readers make the incorrect connection between 'accident' and 'severely injured'. They think that 80% of people got into accident and were seriously injured, the remaining 20% did not get into accident and were safe.

That's incorrect.

The way the information is provided, they are saying that of those that are severely injured (we don't know what portion of the accidents resulted in SEVERE injury but let's say 60% for example or 60 people out of 100) -- 80% did not wear seat belts.

That means out of 60 seriously injured people (out of 100 total), 80% of these 60 did not wear seat belts. Or, 48 did not wear seat belts.

What's important to note is that 20% of these 60 (or 12 people) DID wear a seat belt and still got seriously injured.

So to summarize, 60 people were seriously injured (48 did not wear a seat belt while 12 did). The remaining 40 were more mildly injured and we have no data as to who wore or did not wear seat belts.

The argument is that wearing a seatbelt reduces the risk of SERIOUS injury. However, we know that 12 people wore a seatbelt and still got seriously injured. How do we know that wearing seat belt can reduce the risk?

Well, it must be the case that people wearing a seatbelt tended to have more mild injuries (part of the 40-person group, not the 60-person serious injury group).

So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt

...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?

If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group.

Hi,

Wonderful explanation...KUDIO's for that... I could not understand the below part...

{
So can we show that the breakdown for the serious injury was
80% no seat belt
20% seat belt

...and that the breakdown for the mild injury group was
<80% no seat belt and
>20% seat belt?

If so that means if you wear a seat belt, you are more likely to be part of the mild injury group than the serious injury group. }

Could you throw some light on this..!!!!
_________________

MODULUS Concept ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/inequalities-158054.html#p1257636
HEXAGON Theory ---> http://gmatclub.com/forum/hexagon-theory-tips-to-solve-any-heaxgon-question-158189.html#p1258308

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 615
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jul 2013, 10:59
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.
(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.

A more numeric approach:
The conclusion of the arguement is that by wearing seat-belts, drivers and front-seat passengers can reduce the risk of being .....
Let's assume that out of all the people surveyed,say x, 100 were severly injured. So the remaining were not severly injured(Mild injury,no injury,etc).Now, out of these 100 people, 80 were not wearing seat belts at the time of accident. Thus, 20 were wearing seat belts and still got serious injuries. Now, to re-inforce/buttress the fact that wearing seat-belt greatly reduces the risk of being severly injured[and hence the conclusion of the arguement], the author would need support from the group of people who didn't suffer serious injury because they were wearing seat-belts.
Now, if option A is true, then that means that: # of people wearing seat belts >$$\frac{x}{5}$$ --> # of people wearing seat belts > 20[as x>100 is inherently understood]. This directly means that atleast some of the people who are from the not serious injuries group must have worn seat-belts, thus cementing the conclusion.

Also, as per Option D, we would have the condition : # of people not wearing seat belts >$$\frac{x}{2}$$. Just as above, we have x>100. Thus, # of people not wearing seat belts >50. However, we anyways know that the # of people not wearing seat belts is atleast 80. Thus, this option doesn't really add anything conclusive to cement the conclusion.
_________________
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8190
Location: Pune, India
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Jul 2013, 19:53
1
2
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.

Responding to a pm:

First let's figure out the conclusion in short: If drivers are in an accident, they can reduce risk of severe injury by wearing seat belts.

Notice that the conclusion focuses on drivers who are in an accident, not on other drivers. The point is that if one is in an accident, seat belt can reduce risk of severe injuries. So to prove it, we need data on all drivers who were in an accident.
When people are in an accident, they either suffer mild injuries or severe injuries (which could lead to death).

So if we know that of all who suffered severe injuries, only 20% were wearing seat belts, it doesn't help us conclude that wearing seat belts reduces risk of severe injuries. We need to know that of all who suffered mild injuries, how many were wearing seat belts. Say, of those who suffered mild injuries, only 10% were wearing seat belts, can we still say that seat belts reduce risk of severe injuries? No. Of those who suffered mild injuries, if 60% were wearing seat belts, it strengthens our conclusion.

Taking numbers, say 100 drivers were in an accident.
50 suffered mild injuries - Say, 30 were wearing seat belts
50 suffered severe injuries - Only 10 were wearing seat belts
We need this data to prove our conclusion - if one wears the seat belt, it reduces the risk of severe injuries.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor

Save up to \$1,000 on GMAT prep through 8/20! Learn more here >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

SVP
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1851
Concentration: Finance
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Oct 2013, 16:52
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.

OK, let's make this one rain.

Conclusion: By wearing seat belts,drivers and front-seat passengers can reduce their risk of being severely injured
Premise: A survey of all auto accident victims found that, of the severely injured drivers and front-seat passengers, 80 percent were not wearing seat belts at the time of their accidents

So what do we have here? The survey stated that 80% of the injured were not wearing seat belts, so that means that we need to show that there was some percentage that were in fact wearing seat belts.

OK let's see what we've got here

(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.I like this one. This is very similar to what I was looking for.
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car>> Always wear? Well, we don't really need this information we need to know about the ones being injured. So out you go
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured ---> Unessessary distinction here. Cleraly out
(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---> More than half were not wearing seatbelts, Could be. I'll leave it in.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.[/quote]>> Irrelevant. Out

Between A and D now.
A says that of all the the D and P >20% were wearing seatbelts
D says that of all the D and P >50% were NOT wearing setabelts.

Premise says that 80% of the injured.
I'm going with A on this one, it fits the argument better

Hence(A)

Hope it helps
Cheers!
J
Intern
Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 16
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 May 2014, 00:48
jitgoel 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.

The question stem is:The conclusion above is not properly drawn unless which of the following is true. It means it is a justify conclusion type of question (according to the Critical Reasoning Bible). In justify conclusion type of questions we need to link any new elements in the conclusion and the premise and ignore the common ones. The correct answer need not contain the common elements of the conclusion and the premise.

So in this case,
The premise: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
New thing from the conclusion and the premise is the percentage figure, so the correct answer should contain something related to this percentage figure. If we look at the answer choices
there are only two which mention the percentage figures Choice (A) and Choice (B).

Choice B is not the answer since we are concerned with the number of drivers and front-seat passengers wearing seat belts at the time of accident, which is what A says. The word "always" in B also makes this choice wrong.

Do let me know what you think of the reasoning provided above.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 326
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Jul 2014, 11:05
1
suppose in a town there are 100 people driving vehicles, 40( more than 20 %) wore seat belts , 60 did'nt.
accidents take place.... 10 result in serious cases..... 2 were wearing seat belts 8 were not.....
chances of serious accident----- for those with seat belt- 2/40 ie 5%
-------for those without seat belts- 8/60 ie 13.5 %.

hence conclusion true.....ans = A.............
Intern
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 12
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Jan 2015, 03:30
Isn't this more like a quants question? Or is it usual for the verbal section to include arithmetic and percentage calculations?

Anyway what is the correct answer and explanation?
Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 7
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Jul 2015, 23:58
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.

The scope of the argument is
1) "ALL" auto accidents. It is not restricted to a particular type of vehicle, e.g. a truck or a car or a motorcycle.
2) "Severely injured drivers and front seat passengers" only. Nothing is mentioned about the rear seat drivers.

Based on the given fact about the seat belt status of a given percentage of severely injured drivers and front seat passengers, to conclude that wearing seat belts would reduce severity of accidents, the argument must assume that if there is a scenario where wearing seat belts considerably reduces severe accidents, the same can be emulated in all scenarios with the same result.

(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.
This option is completely within the scope of the argument. More than 20% could mean 80% or could mean 21%.
Let us say 80% were wearing seat belts and 20% did not. That means a total of 25% accidents were severe of which 80%(20% of the total accidents) were found to not wear the seat belts. Hence going by the fact that the remaining 75% accidents which were not severe AND the drivers and front seat passengers werewearing the seat belts, it is a valid assumption that wearing seat belts does reduce severity of accidents.
Let us say 21% were wearing the seat belts and 79% did not. Doing a similar calculation, it is clear that 98.75% accidents were severe, thus indicating that wearing seat belts does not necessarily mean reduced severity.

The above analysis of (Option A) assumes that all accidents involving no seat belts were severe. Without this assumption, the number of possible scenarios increases, but eventually in at least one scenario, the fact that more than 20% were wearing seat belts at the time of the accident does not help strengthen the conclusion. Hence in my opinion,
this is wrong option.

(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
The word "considerably" removes the ambiguity of meaning of more than 20% to be 80% or 21%. Although we do not know exactly what is this considerable figure, but we can rest assured that it is quite sizable.
But this option is restricted to cars. So should we therefore remove it from our consideration using POE? I think NO.
Reason being, we have established that the author is trying to emulate the effectiveness of one scenario across all possible scenarios.
Let us give some numbers now. Let us say this considerable number is 50%. Hence, going by the assumption in the analysis for option A, the remaining 50% of drivers and front-seat passengers who did not wear the seat belts makes the total of severe accidents, 62.5% of all accidents. This means, 38.5% accidents were not severe AND the drivers and front seat passengers were wearing the seat belts.
Although all these figures are restricted to car accidents,
it is a good candidate for forming the conclusion that if the scenario of the 38.5% accidents is emulated, the severity would reduce.

(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.
The seat belt status of the rear-seat passengers is not known. This option does not indicate in any way as to why the author would conclude wearing seat belts as an option to reduce severity of accidents. Out of Scope

(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.
Going by the assumption used to analyze options A and B, this option indicates that very less percentage of drivers and front-seat passengers were seat belts, thus not providing strong grounds to make the conclusion. This weakens the argument.

(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Clearly Out of Scope
Intern
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Posts: 13
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Oct 2015, 03:29
1
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.

Total Accidents - 100
Acc with Serious injuries - 10
Acc W/O seat belt and serious injuries (80%) - 8
Acc With seat belt and serious injuries - 2
Total no of people who wear seat belt = 10 (Assumption)
Total no of people who don't wear seat belt = 90 (Assumption)
% of people who wear seat belt and still have fatal injuries = 2/10 = 20%
% of people who don't wear seat belt and have fatal injuries = 8/90 = 8.88%

Hence wearing seat belt increases the chance of fatal injuries in accident. DO NOT WEAR SEAT BELTS.
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County &nbs [#permalink] 03 Oct 2015, 03:29

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3    Next  [ 52 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.