It is currently 17 Oct 2017, 21:00

### 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
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 23 Jun 2015
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2015, 07:36
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Posts: 12

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 3

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
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.

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.

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 3

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 4472

Kudos [?]: 16961 [0], given: 1961

Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Energy and Utilities)
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2015, 23:47
Nicely done. It became a pure quant problem
_________________

Kudos [?]: 16961 [0], given: 1961

VP
Joined: 18 Sep 2014
Posts: 1205

Kudos [?]: 866 [0], given: 75

Location: India
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Oct 2015, 06:58
mpetwal wrote:
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.

Hi mpetwal
can you explain this portion in detail.
I've got a bit confused.
how did u assume that 10 and 90?
_________________

The only time you can lose is when you give up. Try hard and you will suceed.
Thanks = Kudos. Kudos are appreciated

http://gmatclub.com/forum/rules-for-posting-in-verbal-gmat-forum-134642.html
When you post a question Pls. Provide its source & TAG your questions
Avoid posting from unreliable sources.

My posts
http://gmatclub.com/forum/beauty-of-coordinate-geometry-213760.html#p1649924
http://gmatclub.com/forum/calling-all-march-april-gmat-takers-who-want-to-cross-213154.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/possessive-pronouns-200496.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/double-negatives-206717.html
http://gmatclub.com/forum/the-greatest-integer-function-223595.html#p1721773

Kudos [?]: 866 [0], given: 75

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Feb 2016, 12:42
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 06 Apr 2012
Posts: 34

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 11

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Feb 2016, 06:44
rahulsn84 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.

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.

Agree with your analysis. The steam is always talking about non-users of seatbelt, to demonstrate that seatbeal is securer the answer choice has to state something about seatbelt users and only A and B answer choices talk about that.

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 11

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10127

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2016, 13:27
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 261 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 27

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 17

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V31
GMAT 2: 770 Q51 V42
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Sep 2016, 14:27
My line of thought:

Survey contains people severely injured (SI) and non-severely injured (N-SI)
80% SI didn't wear seat belt (SB). It means 20% of SI wore SB.

Also the Non-Seriously injured were also prevented from getting Seriously Injured. They should have been wearing Seat Belts if argument has to be true.

So the effective %age of SB wearing people will be more than %age of SB wearing people who were severely injured (20)

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 17

Intern
Joined: 05 Jun 2017
Posts: 13

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 31

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2017, 13:16
p: x seatbelt/ severe injury= 80%
C: sb ---> - injury

I immediately thought of
sb / s injury = 20%
We want sb/ other (not in s injury sample) > 20%
To compare the percentage

But I was confused what should be the " other"
All drivers vs all victims (survey sample)
Which is B vs A

I did not notice the passage mentioned severe injury out of all victims.
I did not notice that the question stem is assumption
B is too broad ( thus too strict ) to be assumption
It would work as a weakened.

Thus A

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 31

Manager
Joined: 03 May 2017
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 13

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2017, 14:25
Tricky question, the way I see the situation is as an experiment. For it to be valid, there must be a substantial amount of control group, which are those who wear seat belts. Option A provided this, however, another question would be the amount of control group i.e seat belt wearers needed to make the experiment valid. Yet, option A is good enough i.e over 0.2 meaning less than .64 are not wearing seat belts. Open for discussion.

Kudos [?]: 15 [0], given: 13

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 466

Kudos [?]: 59 [2], given: 49

Location: India
Schools: Duke '20, Tepper '20
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GPA: 4
WE: Consulting (Consulting)
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Jun 2017, 07:26
2
KUDOS
I felt this to be a great question.
But a little time taking.
say 1000 total accidents occured.
100 of them S.Injured .
80 --> X seat belt.
20 ---> Seat belt.
Now,
Option A: for suppose its exactly 20% of people wore seat belt.
20 / 200 = 10% of accidents of seat belt are SI .
80 / 800 = 10 % of accidents of X Seat belt are SI
For suppose, it is less than 20% of people wore seat belt.
% of accidents of seat belt are SI Increases as 200 value increases while 20 remains constant.
Destroying the conclusion .
Hence, Answer should be A. .

Kudos [?]: 59 [2], given: 49

Director
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 822

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Jun 2017, 10:57
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 32

Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 81

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 9

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

### Show Tags

04 Oct 2017, 01:45
Hi,

This is pure Quants problem landed in CR bucket.

The argument wants to show wearing seat belts is safety.

how? by showing -

(no of serious accidents with seat belts / no of accidents with seat belts) < (no of serious accidents with NO seat belts / no of accidents with NO seat belts)

So if above ratio is true, wearing seat belt is safety and people are less prone to serious accidents

Given data: no of serious accidents with seat belts- 20%
no of serious accidents with NO seat belts - 80%

Let no of serious accidents be 10, so
no of serious accidents with seat belts- 2
no of serious accidents with NO seat belts - 8

Let number of total accidents be 100
no of accidents with seat belts = x
no of accidents with NO seat belts = 100 - x

And question is indirectly asking, what is the value of x or rather, what is range of x

now substitute in ratio equation we defined,
(no of serious accidents with seat belts / no of accidents with seat belts) < (no of serious accidents with NO seat belts / no of accidents with NO seat belts)
(2/x) < (8 / (100-x))
rearranging => 200 + 2x < 8x => 20 < x

So x (no of accidents with seat belts) > 20

Wow, this is what answer choice A says !! Bingo !! - safely eliminate other answer choices all we do in quants section - problem solving, once we find the right answer.

To be honest, I didnt get this question correct at first, by after reading all explanations, tried to come up with my own reasoning.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 9

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 793

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2017, 09:14
hi

does anyone know the source if this question?

thank you

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 793

Intern
Joined: 30 Aug 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 793

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Oct 2017, 09:16
why B is wrong? the question says that this survey has considered all the accidents in the Dole county?
need help

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 793

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County   [#permalink] 07 Oct 2017, 09:16

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   [ 56 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

 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®.