gmat1393 wrote:
PeepalTree wrote:
An increasing number of new passenger car models are being shipped with side-impact air bags as standard equipment, in part because such air bags are known to be beneficial in many accident scenarios and in part because not having them is regarded as a marketing disadvantage. However, side-impact air bags are not entirely without risk; for example, they can result in serious injury if a passenger is leaning against the window or the door when an accident takes place. Thus, a leading advocacy group has taken the position that side-impact air bags should not be made standard on all models until their absolute safety can be guaranteed.
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the position of the advocacy group?
A. Shoulder belts for passengers in the rear middle seat of a vehicle save many more lives per year than side-impact air bags do.
B. Side-impact air bags have lessened the exhilaration of driving.
C. Each year, many people are injured when a side-impact air bag inflates against an object suspended from a coat hanger in a vehicle.
D. Features should not be made standard until they are proven to be completely safe.
E. No feature of a vehicle will ever be absolutely safe.
Hi
DavidTutorexamPAL VeritasKarishmaPlease help in eliminating option C here.
Thanks!
Hey, thanks for the question.
My 2c
Our passage can be broken down into
1. more cars shipped with air bags, (because) beneficial in accidents (and because) need for marketing
2. (but) air bags have risk, in [specific example]
3. advocacy group: wait until safety guaranteed before standardizing
We're asked to strengthen the position of the advocacy group, i.e. to support that the air bags should not be standardized until they are absolutely safe. The natural way to do this is to talk about the risk, e.g to show that the risk is too large to be ignored. This would strengthen the case that air bags are dangerous and therefore we should wait before standardizing, but does not address the advocacy's very extreme position that we should wait until they are "absolutely safe". This is the difference between (C) and (D) - (C) would strengthen a more realistic opinion of 'airbags are dangerous; make them safer please" whereas (D) supports the advocacy's extreme position as something which must be true (i.e (D) pretty much literally restates their position as a statement that 'must be true' according to question stem).
Honestly I don't like the question too much, wouldn't spend too much time analyzing it.