Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

 It is currently 23 Jul 2019, 06:36

### 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

# Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 178
GPA: 3.46
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2013, 21:21
2
4
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (01:22) correct 33% (01:41) wrong based on 399 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries

Intern
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Posts: 43
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2013, 21:43
3
mba1382 wrote:
Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries

Hi,

Its A.
We can use the pre-thinking technique to find an assumption that may weaken the argument before we hit the options.

The argument says that hockey players who wear helmet are 20% less likely to suffer head injuries. Hence, it is the helmet that is critical in preventing head injuries.

Pre-Thinking --> So, what can weaken this? Probably something that says that helmet are not responsible for the players suffering less head injuries. Or the classic opposite used in GMAT, rather than the helmet, the players using the helmet (without any compulsion to do so) are responsible for not suffering head injuries?

Having this in mind when you attack the options:
A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
BINGO! Exactly what I had thought. Hold
B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
So what? How does this weaken my conclusion? Hence out.
C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
This option simply states that helmet does not provide any cushion from hard shocks, but does not, in any way, weaken the conclusion.
D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
This is quite close. This also weakens the argument. However, if you notice, there is no mention about the details of head injuries that are still prevailing. As in what is the nature (severe or not), frequency (high or low) as compared to the time before use of helmets was mandated etc. Does not provide enough information to weaken the argument. Hence out.
E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Out of scope

Hence A is correct

Hope it helps
_________________
Kudos plz if it helped
Intern
Status: NOT READY TO GIVE UP
Joined: 24 Apr 2013
Posts: 21
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT Date: 10-30-2013
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2013, 05:35
1
rockstar23 wrote:
mba1382 wrote:
Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the National league required them to do so. These players were 20% less likely to suffer head injuries than other players. Obviously, hockey helmets are critical in preventing head injuries.

Which of the following, if true, would weaken the argument above?

A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries

Hi,

Its A.
We can use the pre-thinking technique to find an assumption that may weaken the argument before we hit the options.

The argument says that hockey players who wear helmet are 20% less likely to suffer head injuries. Hence, it is the helmet that is critical in preventing head injuries.

Pre-Thinking --> So, what can weaken this? Probably something that says that helmet are not responsible for the players suffering less head injuries. Or the classic opposite used in GMAT, rather than the helmet, the players using the helmet (without any compulsion to do so) are responsible for not suffering head injuries?

Having this in mind when you attack the options:
A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
BINGO! Exactly what I had thought. Hold
B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
So what? How does this weaken my conclusion? Hence out.
C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
This option simply states that helmet does not provide any cushion from hard shocks, but does not, in any way, weaken the conclusion.
D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
This is quite close. This also weakens the argument. However, if you notice, there is no mention about the details of head injuries that are still prevailing. As in what is the nature (severe or not), frequency (high or low) as compared to the time before use of helmets was mandated etc. Does not provide enough information to weaken the argument. Hence out.
E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
Out of scope

Hence A is correct

Hope it helps

Still Not able to understand why NOT D....Its says that there were still injuries even after using helmets showing helmets aren't critical...
Senior Manager
Joined: 07 Nov 2012
Posts: 258
Schools: LBS '14 (A\$)
GMAT 1: 770 Q48 V48
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2013, 06:08
1
Hi Himang,

Good question on D. It's a tricky one.

The main thing you need to think about here is the fact that helmets reduce injuries, rather than eliminate them.

So it is not surprising that their are still injuries in other leagues, the key fact we need is something about percentage of injuries. D does not have this, but A does provide something that helps.

Does that make sense?

All the best,

James
Intern
Joined: 13 Aug 2013
Posts: 43
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2013, 06:32
himang wrote:
Still Not able to understand why NOT D....Its says that there were still injuries even after using helmets showing helmets aren't critical...

Reason why D is not correct:
Before it was compulsory for players to wear helmets, number of injuries = 100 (assume)
However, there is no detail as to how many injuries were there after players were required to wear helmets. It could be 10 or it could be 90. Hence option D provides insufficient information to conclude that helmets are in no way responsible in reducing the likelihood that players will suffer head injuries.

When D could have been correct:
Assume the following to be Option D:
Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still same number (or almost same) of head injuries in those leagues.
This option clearly weakens by telling that even though helmets were used since 20 years, there is no significant change in the number of head injuries suffered. Clearly, helmets do not contribute in reducing the likelihood of suffering head injuries

Reason why A is correct:
On the contrary, in option A, it is clearly mentioned that its the players who play cautiously because of which they were less likely to suffer head injuries. It directly hammers the conclusion that the helmets had to do anything with the players being less likely to suffer head injuries.

Hope it is clear now
_________________
Kudos plz if it helped
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2538
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

19 Dec 2015, 12:20
Went with A, and this is my reasoning:

HP - forced by NL - wear helmets.
b4, HP who used helmets were 20% less likely to suffer from HI.
Thus, helmets are critical in preventing HI.

the assumption here is that those players who used helmets had the same chance of getting hurt even without helmets.
to weaken the argument, we need to either negate the assumption, or find an answer choice that makes the conclusion less believable.

A. Players who began wearing helmets before they were required were, generally, cautious players who were less likely to become involved in rough checking and fights than were other players
ok, so it directly negates the assumption. people who used helmets were actually more cautious, and were less likely to be injured in the first place.

B. Early hockey helmets were bulky and uncomfortable, leading some players to complain that they had a negative impact on players' performances
this one is irrelevant.

C. Hockey helmets are sometimes constructed from composite materials that provide virtually no cushion from hard shocks
from what materials helmets are constructed is out of scope.

D. Hockey leagues in other countries began requiring helmets more than 20 years earlier, but there are still head injuries in those leagues
other leagues is out of scope.

E. Hockey helmets do nothing to prevent knee injuries, which are more common than head injuries
knee injuries are out of scope.

only A actually is in the scope and weakens the argument.
_________________
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 4845
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Feb 2018, 23:41
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.
_________________
Re: Certain hockey players began wearing helmets before the   [#permalink] 24 Feb 2018, 23:41
Display posts from previous: Sort by