Based upon studies conducted over the last two decades that show head

Question

Based upon studies conducted over the last two decades that show head injuries can be reduced if children wear bicycle helmets, some jurisdictions have passed laws requiring that children under the age of 12 wear helmets when they ride their bicycles. A surprising result has been observed, however. Even though a large number of children do wear bicycle helmets, more head injuries than expected are continuing to occur. And this is the result even though the studies have shown that wearing a helmet reduces the incidence of head injuries.

Which one of the following statements, if true, might suitably explain the unexpected finding?

(A) A large number of parents are not making their children wear bicycle helmets.

(B) More children are riding bicycles now than before bicycle helmets were introduced.

(C) Because bicycle helmets are quite expensive, many parents don’t buy them for their children.

(D) Bicycle helmets were not designed to prevent all head injuries, so it is not surprising that head injuries still occur.

(E) Bicycle helmets do not work properly if they are not properly secured with the chin strap, and many children and their parents do not secure the chin strap properly.

Source:   Nova GMAT  
Difficulty Level:   700

abhimahna · Answer

We are given Children are wearing the helmets but still the head injuries have increased. We need to find out the reasons for the same

(A) A large number of parents are not making their children wear bicycle helmets.  Read the line "a large number of children do wear bicycle helmets". Hence, this point is incorrect. 
(B) More children are riding bicycles now than before bicycle helmets were introduced.  : Ok, but they are wearing the helmets also, then why is the number of injuries increasing? 
(C) Because bicycle helmets are quite expensive, many parents don’t buy them for their children.:  Same as A 
(D) Bicycle helmets were not designed to prevent all head injuries, so it is not surprising that head injuries still occur.  Not all. Fine, but what about some? Those should be prevented and thus overall number should be decreased. 
(E) Bicycle helmets do not work properly if they are not properly secured with the chin strap, and many children and their parents do not secure the chin strap properly. :
 Wow, so this is the reason. Cool, we have the correct Answer.

UjjawalD · Answer

how can E be correct answer how it is justifying more than expected head injuries

shivambindal123 · Answer

Hi,

Isn't this question similar to an official guide question ( In the past, most children who went sledding in the winter snow in Verland used wooden sleds with runners and steering bars. Ten years ago, smooth plastic sleds became popular; they go faster than wooden sleds but are harder to steer and slow. The concern that plastic sleds are more dangerous is clearly borne out by the fact that the number of children injured while sledding was much higher last winter than it was ten years ago )?

For B, shouldn't the reasoning be that more children started riding the bicycle, therefore, more head injuries than expected?

Also, for E, it is mentioned "many" so how does that explain that "more than expected" head injuries occurred?

Please help!  abhimahna ,  GMATNinja

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

Before looking at the possible answers, take a few seconds to think about what might be causing the unexpected result. What could explain the continuing incidence of head injuries? Perhaps children’s bicycle helmets were not designed properly or perhaps children are not using the helmets properly. Now look at the possible selections.

(A)  and  (C)  are not correct because they are possible explanations for why children do not wear helmets. The passage asks why injuries still occur in children who do wear helmets.

(B)  is irrelevant; it does not explain why head injuries occur in children who wear bicycle helmets. The passage implies that bicycle helmets reduce the total incidence of head injuries, not that they eliminate all head injuries.

Selection  (D)  contradicts this implication because it states that the same injuries occur that bicycle helmets help prevent.

Selection  (E)  remains, and it is the correct selection. It also fits an explanation we thought of before reviewing the selections.

Answer: E

ravigupta2912 · Answer

I still don't understand the reasoning behind E. It does not explain "more" head injuries than before. My pre-thinking was:-

a) Ride bicycle more dangerously now;
b) Increase in people who are riding bicycle

How can not wearing helmet properly result in more injuries than not wearing helmet at all?

BenR26 · Answer

The way I arrived at E was:

1.Studies have shown wearing helmets reduces head injuries
2. Subsequently, law has been passed requiring children under 12 to wear helmets
3.Surprising result: Large amount of kids do wear helmets, but head injuries are actually higher than expected

For me, 'Large amount of kids do wear helmets' is the crucial part.

A) Incorrect because paragraph states that large amount of kids actually do wear helmets.
B) Tempting, because there have been plenty of questions where the answer 'because more of event A will create an environment conducive to consequence B happening' was the right one. However, B didn't sit right with me because it doesn't address the spike, particularly when, if anything, rate should be going down due to increased usage of helmets.
C) Cost of helmets never mentioned in paragraph, and besides the paragraph states that large amounts of children actually do wear helmets.
D) Again, it doesn't actually explain or address a spike of head injuries when the rate was expected to decline.
E) This works because it acknowledges that actually more children do wear helmets, and provides an explanation within that new paradigm: although more kids do wear helmets which, as studies have shown, do reduce head injuries, they are being improperly secured by the parents - implying that they won't end up providing adequate protection in an accident and thus explaining the surprising spike.

That's just my thought process!

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Based upon studies conducted over the last two decades that show head

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Based upon studies conducted over the last two decades that show head

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards