Last visit was: 21 May 2024, 13:12 It is currently 21 May 2024, 13:12
Toolkit
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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

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

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Joined: 18 May 2008
Posts: 696
Own Kudos [?]: 2811 [152]
Given Kudos: 0
Manhattan Prep Instructor
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Posts: 2661
Own Kudos [?]: 7793 [31]
Given Kudos: 56
GMAT 2: 780  Q50  V50
Manager
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 66
Own Kudos [?]: 342 [25]
Given Kudos: 0
General Discussion
Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 344
Own Kudos [?]: 2312 [3]
Given Kudos: 6
V25
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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]
Senior Manager
Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 266
Own Kudos [?]: 156 [4]
Given Kudos: 24
Location: PDX
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
Q44  V40
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
3
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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
Director
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 623
Own Kudos [?]: 1956 [3]
Given Kudos: 1
Q49  V41
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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.
Intern
Joined: 15 Mar 2008
Posts: 22
Own Kudos [?]: 52 [10]
Given Kudos: 0
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
5
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
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.
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 56
Own Kudos [?]: 1221 [0]
Given Kudos: 13
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 613
Own Kudos [?]: 647 [1]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Manager
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Posts: 56
Own Kudos [?]: 1221 [0]
Given Kudos: 13
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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?
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 613
Own Kudos [?]: 647 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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.
Kaplan GMAT Instructor
Joined: 25 Aug 2009
Posts: 613
Own Kudos [?]: 647 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Location: Cambridge, MA
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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!
Manager
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 216
Own Kudos [?]: 775 [0]
Given Kudos: 33
Location: India
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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: 2261
Own Kudos [?]: 3680 [11]
Given Kudos: 8
Location: New York, NY
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
11
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Posts: 485
Own Kudos [?]: 3104 [1]
Given Kudos: 141
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
1
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.
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14891
Own Kudos [?]: 65406 [7]
Given Kudos: 431
Location: Pune, India
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
4
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
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.
Current Student
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 216
Own Kudos [?]: 474 [2]
Given Kudos: 70
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE:Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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: 14 Jun 2013
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 22 [1]
Given Kudos: 3
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 740 Q48 V44
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
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.
Senior Manager
Joined: 26 Aug 2016
Posts: 449
Own Kudos [?]: 396 [3]
Given Kudos: 204
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V33
GMAT 3: 730 Q51 V38
GPA: 4
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
3
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. .
Senior Manager
Joined: 02 Apr 2014
Posts: 371
Own Kudos [?]: 476 [1]
Given Kudos: 1227
Location: India
Schools: XLRI"20
GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.5
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
Re: A recent survey of all auto accident victims in Dole County found that [#permalink]
1   2
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6936 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts