It is currently 18 Nov 2017, 12:45

### 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

VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 541 [6], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 01:38
6
KUDOS
34
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

95% (hard)

Question Stats:

35% (02:00) correct 65% (02:02) wrong based on 1016 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Kudos [?]: 541 [6], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 108

Kudos [?]: 205 [8], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

05 Apr 2009, 10:03
8
KUDOS
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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?

Explanation:
--------------------
(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. ---> We know from the excerpt that
Drivers + Front-Seat Passengers = Severely Injured (20% Wearing Seat-Belts + 80% Not Wearing Seat-Belts) + Not Severely Injured (No Information)

Now, what if more than 80% of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were NOT wearing seat-belts? Using this scenario, we can say that wearing seat-belts will NOT reduce the risk of being severely injured. So the conclusion cannot be properly drawn.

Since we have to show that author's conclusion was properly drawn, we have to show that the scenario I cited above was not possible. To make the above scenario impossible, we can say that more than 80% (actually it should be 100% otherwise these people will come under the category of ‘severely injured’ ones) of the drivers and front-seat passengers who were NOT severely injured were wearing seat-belts. Also, excerpt mentions that 20% people from the severely injured category were wearing seat-belts.

So, if we add people (who were wearing seat-belts) from both the categories (severely injured & not severely injured), we'll arrive at the assumption stated in this option.

(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. ---> Mentions about car. Irrelevant.

(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. ---> Will not help us in any way to prove that the conclusion was properly drawn.

(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. ---> This cannot be the assumption in order to arrive at the author’s conclusion.

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

Hope that helps.

Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

Kudos [?]: 205 [8], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 2137

Kudos [?]: 1636 [6], given: 8

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
KUDOS
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.

Kudos [?]: 1636 [6], given: 8

Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 1131

Kudos [?]: 1231 [4], given: 29

### Show Tags

26 Mar 2011, 00:14
4
KUDOS
Expert's post
4
This post was
BOOKMARKED
This argument comes to a conclusion about the benefits of seatbelts without providing any data about what happens to people who wear them. Let's look at a similar scenario: Imagine that I perform a study that finds that most people with heart disease are not Dutch. Could I conclude that being Dutch protects against heart disease? No, because most people *without* heart disease aren't Dutch, either! I would have to see some data showing that Dutch people show up more in the general population than they do among heart disease sufferers.

Similarly, if we look at all the people who get in accidents--whether they get injured or not--and we don't see more than 20% wearing their seatbelts, then this data doesn't show that seatbelts are safe. It just shows that not many people wear them. If that's the case, then the conclusion doesn't make much sense--seatbelt wearers appear to be getting injured just as much as everyone else (even more, if they represent *less* than 20% of the group). On the other hand, if the assumption in A is correct, and more than 20% of people who get in accidents have their seatbelts on, then we have to wonder why more of them weren't injured. The conclusion starts to look much better.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Dmitry Farber | Manhattan GMAT Instructor | New York

Manhattan GMAT Discount | Manhattan GMAT Course Reviews | View Instructor Profile |
Manhattan GMAT Reviews

Kudos [?]: 1231 [4], given: 29

VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1402

Kudos [?]: 443 [3], given: 1

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 19:13
3
KUDOS
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.

If 80% are NOT wearing SB, How can more than 20% wear SB? Wrong.

(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.

Expands scope to all drivers. Wrong

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

Premise gives a statistic and conclusion makes a judgment on how severity of injuries can be reduced. So seems to connect 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.

Isnt this a restatement or possibly contradiction of the premise. more than 50% means could be <=80% or more than 80%

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

If they dont involve any serious injury at all, belts do not help any thing.

Assumption Q based on connect the premise and conclusion or fill the logical gap.

Kudos [?]: 443 [3], given: 1

Manager
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 50

Kudos [?]: 34 [3], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

02 Sep 2009, 06:41
3
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
A is correct.
Lets say there were 100 cases of "serious" accident. Then 80 of those cases were not wearing seat-belts according to the author. But 20 were. So the author assumes that wearing seat-belts can prevent serious accidents. How can that be? There are 20 cases of serious accident that were wearing seat belts! Then how can the author claim that seat-belts can prevent serious accidents? The only way this can happen is if more than 20 people in the auto-accident survey were wearing seat belts and were not seriously hurt. Choice A provides us with that number- it says more than 20% of ALL accident cases were wearing seat-belts at the time of the accident. Now 20% of ALL cases has to be > 20% of serious cases since "serious cases" is a sub-group of all cases.

Kudos [?]: 34 [3], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Posts: 92

Kudos [?]: 232 [3], given: 12

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

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2011, 03:36
3
KUDOS
27
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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

Kudos [?]: 232 [3], given: 12

Manager
Joined: 02 Jun 2011
Posts: 116

Kudos [?]: 69 [2], given: 5

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

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2012, 13:08
2
KUDOS
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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.

Kudos [?]: 69 [2], given: 5

Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 467

Kudos [?]: 62 [2], given: 50

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 [?]: 62 [2], given: 50

Director
Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 872

Kudos [?]: 860 [1], given: 18

Name: Ronak Amin
Schools: IIM Lucknow (IPMX) - Class of 2014
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 05:41
1
KUDOS
Tricky.
I go with D.
We limit our scope to drivers+front seat passengers, only D in a way strengthens this conclusion by saying more than 50% in the survey were not wearing => 80% injured was a big amount.
What is OA? I may be wrong.. this is interesting.
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.

Kudos [?]: 860 [1], given: 18

Intern
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 9

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 06:54
1
KUDOS
i think ans is C which states
c)More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured.

What if the majority of the people injured are sitting in the rear seat . making seat belts mandatory for front seat passengers wont help them .

D ) is explicitly mentioned in the statement, so it doesnt add any further support to the argument.

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

Director
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 634

Kudos [?]: 647 [1], given: 6

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 11:55
1
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
IMO A. I was confused between A and D but finally opted A.

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

We have to find out why argument believes "wearing seat belts, ... can greatly reduce . risk"? Of course some proof is required to stand this point.
A) see the blue part: were wearing - this does validate the claim
D) were not wearing - this does not validate the claim [extra line of assumption is precarious on GMAT]
_________________

If You're Not Living On The Edge, You're Taking Up Too Much Space

Kudos [?]: 647 [1], given: 6

Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 367

Kudos [?]: 96 [1], given: 24

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 16:11
1
KUDOS
Premise: 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

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.

(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. - Perfect. Of all the people in the survey 80% of those injured didn't wear seat belts, 20% wore seat belts - which strengthens the conclusion
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car. - Always has no relevance, the argument talks about accidental impact.
(C) More drivers and front-seat passengers in the survey than rear-seat passengers were very severely injured. - Doesn't add anything to strengthen the conclusion
(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. Nothing to support or strengthen the conclusion
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
Out of Scope
_________________

In the land of the night, the chariot of the sun is drawn by the grateful dead

Kudos [?]: 96 [1], given: 24

Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 644

Kudos [?]: 306 [1], given: 2

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

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2012, 21:44
1
KUDOS
Expert's post
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.
_________________

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

Prepare with Kaplan and save $150 on a course! Kaplan Reviews Kudos [?]: 306 [1], given: 2 Verbal Forum Moderator Joined: 10 Oct 2012 Posts: 627 Kudos [?]: 1386 [1], given: 136 Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] ### Show Tags 03 Jul 2013, 10:59 1 This post received KUDOS 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. _________________ Kudos [?]: 1386 [1], given: 136 Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor Joined: 16 Oct 2010 Posts: 7736 Kudos [?]: 17780 [1], given: 235 Location: Pune, India Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County [#permalink] ### Show Tags 04 Jul 2013, 19:53 1 This post received KUDOS Expert's post 2 This post was BOOKMARKED 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 My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17780 [1], given: 235

Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 353

Kudos [?]: 151 [1], given: 70

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
KUDOS
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.............

Kudos [?]: 151 [1], given: 70

Intern
Joined: 14 Jun 2013
Posts: 13

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

Intern
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 8

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

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

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2009, 15:40
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.
-- OOS
(B) Considerably more than 20 percent of drivers and front-seat passengers in Dole County always wear seat belts when traveling by car.
-- OOS
(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.
-- True, but doesn't add any support to the statement to draw conclusion.
(E) Most of the auto accidents reported to police in Dole County do not involve any serious injury.
-- OOS

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

VP
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 1258

Kudos [?]: 541 [0], given: 0

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

### Show Tags

31 Mar 2009, 23:32
OA is A

Kudos [?]: 541 [0], given: 0

Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County   [#permalink] 31 Mar 2009, 23:32

Go to page    1   2   3    Next  [ 56 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by